Cable & Computer Technology, Inc. v. Lockheed Saunders, Inc.

Citation. 175 F.R.D. 646 (C. D. Cal. 1997)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation175 F.R.D. 646 (C. D. Cal. 1997)

Brief Fact Summary.

Plaintiff sued Defendant for fraud, breach of contract, and other claims.  Defendant sought an order from the court compelling Plaintiff to answer certain interrogatories. Plaintiff objected to the interrogatories on the ground that they were “contention interrogatories.”

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

An interrogatory is not objectionable because it calls for an opinion or a contention related to a fact or the application of law to a fact.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

Requiring a party to answer contention interrogatories is consistent with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires that plaintiffs must have some factual basis for the allegations in their complaint.

View Full Point of Law

Defendant sought an order from the court compelling Plaintiff to answer certain interrogatories in an action Plaintiff brought against it  for fraud, breach of contract, and other claims related to certain radar simulator contracts.  Plaintiff objected to the interrogatories on the ground that they were “contention interrogatories.”

Issue.

Was Plaintiff obligated to respond to the “contention interrogatories“?

Held.

Yes. Plaintiff was obligated to respond to the “contention interrogatories“?

Discussion.

With respect to objections to contention interrogatories, the burden is on the party opposing discovery. For concerns regarding an answer effectively limiting proof at trial, the trial court may permit the subsequent withdrawal or amendment of an answer to an interrogatory.