KMI Zeolite, Inc. v. JC Steele & Sons, Inc.

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 16, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01215
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 * * *

4 KMI ZEOLITE, INC., a Nevada Case No. 2:24-cv-01215-RFB-EJY corporation, 5 Plaintiff, ORDER 6 v. 7 J.C. STEEL & SONS, INC., a North Carolina 8 corporation; DOES I-X; ROE BUSINESS ENTITIES I through X, inclusive 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pending before the Court is the Motion to Compel Responses to Interrogatories filed by 12 Defendant J.C. Steele & Sons, Inc. (Defendant or “J.C. Steele”). ECF No. 38. The Court considered 13 the Motion, Opposition (ECF No. 41), and Reply (ECF No. 42). 14 I. Discussion 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1) states: “Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by 16 the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all 17 discrete subparts.” While the Rule does not define the term “discrete subparts,” it is well accepted 18 that subparts count collectively as one interrogatory if “they are logically or factually subsumed 19 within and necessarily related to the primary question.” Safeco of America v. Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 20 441, 445 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (quoting Kendall v. GES Exposition Services, Inc., 174 F.R.D. 684, 685 21 (D. Nev. 1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). As explained in Kendall:

22 “[p]robably the best test of whether subsequent questions, within a single interrogatory, are subsumed and related, is to examine whether the first question is 23 primary and subsequent questions are secondary to the primary question. Or, can the subsequent question stand alone? Is it independent of the first question? 24 Genuine subparts should not be counted as separate interrogatories. However, discrete or separate questions should be counted as separate interrogatories, 25 notwithstanding [that] they are joined by a conjunctive word and may be related. 26 Id. 27 “Determining whether an interrogatory counts as a separate question requires a pragmatic 1 *2 (E.D. Cal. May 8, 2008). “[O]nce a subpart of an interrogatory introduces a line of inquiry that 2 is separate and distinct from the inquiry made by the portion of the interrogatory that precedes it, the 3 subpart must be considered a separate interrogatory no matter how it is designated.” Willingham v. 4 Ashcroft, 226 F.R.D. 57, 59 (D. D.C. 2005). 5 Here, Defendant seeks to compel KMI Zeolite Inc. (“KMI” or “Plaintiff”) to answer 6 Interrogatory Nos. 14, 15, and 16 of the First Set of Interrogatories. However, a review of the Motion 7 shows Interrogatory No. 14 was answered. That is, the question sought the “name of each individual 8 acting on behalf of J.C. Steele” as it pertained to allegations in various paragraphs of Plaintiff’s 9 Complaint. ECF No. 38 at 4. A review of the response included in the Motion indicate the names 10 of those acting on behalf of J.C. Steele were provided. Id. at 4-5. Thus, at best, it is unclear what 11 Defendant seeks to compel with respect to Interrogatory No. 14 and on this basis no order compelling 12 further responses will be granted. 13 With respect to Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16, Plaintiff objected on one basis only: that the 14 number of interrogatories permitted by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34 were exceeded when all 15 discrete subparts of the interrogatories were counted. Id. at 5. By way of guidance, the Court notes 16 the Advisory Committee Notes to the 1993 Amendments to Rule 33 states, in part, that:

17 Each party is allowed to serve 25 interrogatories upon any other party, but must secure leave of court (or a stipulation from the opposing party) to serve a larger 18 number. Parties cannot evade this presumptive limitation through the device of joining as “subparts” questions that seek information about discrete separate 19 subjects. However, a question asking about communications of a particular type should be treated as a single interrogatory even though it requests that the time, 20 place, persons present, and contents be stated separately for each such communication. 21 22 Analyzing Interrogatory No. 15, the Court finds, just like when a party asks the time, place, persons 23 present and contents of a communications, Defendant’s primary question is the name of each 24 individual acting on behalf of J.C. Steele and not the paragraphs identified for which responses are 25 requested. While it is true J.C. Steele might have avoided Plaintiff’s objection by asking the identity 26 of all individuals to whom Plaintiff refers in its Complaint, then providing an example or two, an 27 outcome based on this analysis elevates form over substance, which the Court will not do in this 1 Further, after providing the Court with the language found in Rule 33 and case law reiterating 2 the tests applicable to determining if an interrogatory contains discrete subparts, a question that does 3 not allow for precise determination, KMI offers no citation to law in support of its position in this 4 case. See ECF No. 41. A review of Plaintiff’s Complaint reveals many allegations with unidentified 5 participants that leaves Defendant with an impaired ability to defend. ECF No. 1. When considering 6 the above, the requirements Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) (making mandatory the disclosure, “without 7 awaiting a discovery request,” of names and, if known, addresses and phone numbers of individuals 8 who are likely to have discoverable information), and the truth seeking purpose of discovery, Ragge 9 v. MCA/Universal Studios, 165 F.R.D. 601, 603 (C.D. Cal. 1995), the Court finds KMI’s arguments 10 unpersuasive. 11 Indeed, on a motion to compel discovery, “[t]he party opposing discovery bears the burden 12 of resisting disclosure.” Rogers v. Giurbino, 288 F.R.D. 469, 479 (S.D. Cal. 2012). And, well settled 13 law establishes the Court has “wide discretion in controlling discovery.” Jeff D. v. Otter, 643 F.3d 14 278, 289 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Little v. City of Seattle, 863 F.2d 681, 685 (9th Cir. 1988)). 15 Plaintiff has not met its burden. The Court rejects KMI’s contention that it may resist responding to 16 J.C. Steele’s Interrogatory No. 15 on the sole basis asserted—that is, that J.C. Steele has exceeded 17 the number of interrogatories it may propound under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 18 The objection is overruled and KMI must answer the interrogatory. Further, because Plaintiff’s 19 objection to Interrogatory No. 15 is overruled, and J.C. Steele has not exceeded the number of 20 interrogatories that are permitted under applicable rule, KMI’s objection to Interrogatory No. 16, 21 made on the exact same basis as the objection to Interrogatory No. 15, is also overruled. KMI must 22 answer Interrogatory No. 16. 23 II. Order 24 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant J.C. Steele & Sons Inc.’s Motion to Compel 25 Responses to Interrogatories (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff KMI Zeolite, Inc. must respond to Interrogatory 27 Nos. 15 and 16 no later than July 7, 2025. 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court exercises its discretion and declines J.C. Steele’s 2 request for “reasonable expenses.” 3 Dated this 16th day of June, 2025. 4

5 ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27