Contention Interrogatories Require Complete, Specific Answers By the Close of Discovery
Judge Nolan compelled defendant to provide complete answers, citing specific individuals, documents and things to plaintiff's fact-based contention interrogatories. Plaintiff served defendant with contention interrogatory seeking to learn each basis for each of defendant's defenses and counterclaims relating to plaintiff's "ULTRA-LITE" and "Monster Tachometer" marks. Defendant initially provided broad, non-committal answers and eventually supplemented including general statements directing plaintiff to defendant's document production without specifying any Bates ranges.
The Court noted that contention interrogatories force parties to commit to positions and to back the positions up with supporting facts. Because fact discovery was closed, the Court ordered defendant to provide detailed answers including identifying specific documents it was relying upon.
The Court did not compel defendant to provide the same detailed responses to plaintiff's contention interrogatories seeking all expert opinions to be relied upon because expert discovery was not yet closed. The Court noted that the expert disclosures were properly addressed using the Court ordered expert discovery schedule.
