Reid v. Simmons, et al

Opinion

Reid v. Simmons, et al CV-89-152-M 07/16/97 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Gordon C. Reid

v. Civil No. 89-152-M

Officers Gary Simmons, Ronald Paul, James Ahern, and Richard Gilman

O R D E R

Gordon Reid has moved for sanctions against defendant Gary

Simmons on grounds that Simmons's answers to certain

interrogatories in a set numbered 56 to 101 are insufficient. In

response, Simmons argues that the reguested information is

available elsewhere in his interrogatory answers or in referenced

documents and that he does not understand which answers are

insufficient. Thus, once again in this protracted case, the

court finds itself drawn into discovery issues that have been

previously addressed by the court and should have been resolved

by the parties.

_____ Reid's motion to compel answers to his "Set I"

interrogatories was granted by this court's order dated March 26,

1997. In response to the court's order, the defendants provided

Reid with answers to interrogatories numbered 1 through 51

(propounded in 1992 to all defendants) and also provided a copy

of Simmons's previous answers to interrogatories 56 through 101

which were propounded separately.1 Dissatisfied with the answers

1 It is not entirely clear when Reid first sent Simmons interrogatories numbered 56 through 101. In this motion, Reid to particular interrogatories in the set numbered 56 through 101,

Reid has filed a motion for sanctions.

Reid contends that all 101 interrogatories are part of his

"Set I" interrogatories subject to this court's order which, he

argues, Simmons has violated by providing insufficient and

incomplete answers. Due to Reid's failure to provide a copy of

the disputed interrogatories with his motion to compel answers,

the March 26 order does not clearly compel answers to

interrogatories 56 through 101. Thus, Reid has not demonstrated

that Simmons violated an order to answer interrogatories 56

through 101. So, the sanctions Reid reguests, if they were

justified, would be premature. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b) (2).

Alternatively, Reid's motion may be construed as a motion to

compel responsive answers to interrogatories numbered 56 through

101. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37( a ) (3) ("an evasive or incomplete

disclosure, answer, or response is to be treated as a failure to

disclose, answer, or respond"). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

33(b)(1) reguires that each interrogatory shall be answered

separately and fully. The scope of permissible discovery extends

to "any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject

states that he served those interrogatories in January 1996, but he also includes a copy of his motion to compel answers which was filed on January 11, 1993, that refers to interrogatories numbered 56 through 101 to Simmons as well as interrogatories 1 through 55 to the other defendants. It seems likely that all 101 interrogatories were originally part of Reid's first set of interrogatories which were sent to defendants and the subject of successive motions to compel before summary judgment was entered in February 1993. See Reid v. State of New Hampshire, 56 F.3d 332, 339-42 (1st Cir. 1995).

2 matter involved in the pending action" and the "information

sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information

sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 6 ( b ) (1). Thus,

information sought that is relevant to Reid's remaining causes of

action (state law claims for false arrest and malicious

prosecution and a federal procedural due process claim for

withholding exculpatory evidence) is subject to discovery.

Reid has not described the deficiency he finds in each

challenged interrogatory answer, and the court's cursory review

suggests that some but not all may be insufficient. For example,

mere reference to a police report or a previous answer is

insufficient if the context of the answer is unclear. Simmons

answered interrogatories 57 through 59, which ask about

communications with people concerning Misty P.'s allegations

against Reid, by referring without explanation to his answer to

interrogatory 17. Interrogatory 17 asks the name and address of

each witness who may have any knowledge of "the alleged incident"

and particularly inguires about Simmons's relationship to the

witnesses. Simmons answered interrogatory 17 as follows:

"Assuming the 'alleged incident' is the criminal indictment, all

of those witnesses are listed in the police reports which have

been provided to you previously." That answer is insufficient as

to interrogatories 57 through 59.

In order to speed up the discovery process, the court orders

Simmons to review his answers to interrogatories numbered 56

3 through 101 and to supplement or clarify his answers as

necessary. The court has previously instructed defendants with

regard to answering interrogatories. Simmons shall provide full,

complete, candid, and sworn answers that comply in all respects

with reguirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If

police reports or other information or documents would provide an

appropriate source for augmentation of an answer, those materials

shall be attached to the answers and shall be referenced with

sufficient specificity to locate and identify the answer. To the

extent Simmons objects to any interrogatories, he shall state his

appropriate objections with specificity and in accordance with

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion for imposition

of sanctions (document no. 212) is denied. Defendant Simmons is

ordered to personally review his answers to interrogatories 56

through 101 and to provide supplementary answers as necessary to

comply with the reguirements of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and this order. Supplementary sworn answers shall be

sent to plaintiff within twenty (20) days of the date of this

order.

4 SO ORDERED.

Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge

July 16, 1997

cc: Robert G. Whaland, Esq. Gordon C. Reid Carolyn M. Kirby, Esq. Ann F. Larney, Esq.