Paulino-Santos v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

Nature of the dispute

The parties submitted a joint letter-motion about the defendants’ Third Set of Interrogatories. The interrogatories ask the plaintiffs to identify the specific relief they seek concerning three alleged Access-A-Ride problems: the requirement that rides be scheduled the day before, waits of up to 30 minutes, and excessively long routes. The defendants also asked what other specific changes the plaintiffs want.

Defendants’ position

The defendants argued that the requested information was relevant to the plaintiffs’ claims and to the defendants’ defenses, including arguments that the requested changes would create an undue burden or hardship. They contended that the information was needed before expert discovery because it would help define feasibility and the scope of possible injunctive relief.

The defendants further argued that the interrogatories were not improper contention interrogatories—questions seeking a party’s factual or legal positions—and did not require legal conclusions. They said the interrogatories simply asked the plaintiffs to state what they wanted the defendants to do. The defendants also asserted that the plaintiffs had missed the response deadline, later served only blanket objections, and did not provide sworn answers.

Plaintiffs’ position

The plaintiffs opposed the motion and cross-moved for a protective order striking the interrogatories. Alternatively, they asked to answer at the close of expert discovery. They argued that the interrogatories sought premature legal contentions about matters for which the plaintiffs did not bear the burden of proof, and that the defendants had the information needed to evaluate the operation and feasibility of Access-A-Ride.

The plaintiffs also argued that they had already provided substantial discovery about the relief they seek. They contended that the defendants’ questions improperly treated their claims about systemic discrimination as individual preferences. The plaintiffs further argued that the defendants had not complied with a prior court order concerning compromises during the parties’ meet-and-confer process.

Court action

The order does not decide whether the interrogatories must be answered, whether they should be struck, or when responses are due. Instead, the court directed the parties to appear for a case-management conference on June 12, 2024, at noon by Microsoft Teams, to address the discovery dispute. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke signed the order, which states: “SO ORDERED.”