Kiss v. Kenny
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:22-cv-10663
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Kiss v. Kenny, Judge Seibel granted in part and denied in part motions concerning Daniel Kiss’s expanded discovery demands.
Pro se plaintiff Daniel Kiss and defendants Janet Kenny and Debra Rubin; the order determines which discovery questions and document requests the defendants must answer or fulfill.
What happened
In Kiss v. Kenny, pro se plaintiff Daniel Kiss asked to use more interrogatories—written questions in discovery—because he could not afford depositions. Defendants Janet Kenny and Debra Rubin objected to his April 25 and April 30, 2025 demands because they exceeded the usual limits and, in some instances, sought improper information.
The court allowed Kiss to use broader interrogatories because they were a practical substitute for depositions given his limited resources. It required Kenny and Rubin to answer specified questions, answer others as modified by the court, and produce documents responsive to one request. The court excused each defendant from answering certain questions because they were irrelevant or sought legal conclusions.
Judge Cathy Seibel also found that monetary sanctions against Kiss were not warranted because he was trying to follow the rules and there was no indication that he was harassing the defendants. The court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ motions and directed the defendants to respond by June 6, 2025.
The detailed version
- Kiss v. Kenny · No. 7:22-cv-10663
- Cathy Seibel
- May 9, 2025
Background
Pro se plaintiff Daniel Kiss served discovery demands dated April 25 and April 30, 2025. The demands exceeded the limits in Local Civil Rule 33.3. Kiss asked the court to approve expanded interrogatories and require defendants Janet Kenny and Debra Rubin to answer them. Kiss explained that he would not take depositions because of their cost and that broader written questions were a more practical way to obtain relevant information. Kenny opposed the request, and Rubin argued that some questions were inappropriate and resembled cross-examination.
Expanded Interrogatories
The court held that Local Civil Rule 33.3 permits interrogatories beyond the usual limits when they are a more practical way to obtain information than document requests or depositions. Given Kiss’s pro se status and limited resources, the court permitted him to use broader interrogatories instead of depositions. The court also permitted interrogatories beyond the 25-question limit in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1) and stated that these interrogatories would not be subject to Local Civil Rule 33.3(a)’s subject-matter limitation.
Demands Directed to Janet Kenny
Kenny was required to answer Interrogatory Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, and 9 from the April 30 demands as written because they sought factual information. The court modified and required Kenny to answer Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 10, 12 through 21, and 23 through 25. The modifications were intended to remove requests for legal conclusions, make the questions clearer, and allow Kiss to seek relevant information.
The court ruled that Interrogatory No. 7 was properly a request for production of documents, so Kenny had to produce responsive documents. Kenny did not have to answer Interrogatory Nos. 11 and 22 because the court found them irrelevant.
Demands Directed to Debra Rubin
Rubin was required to answer Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8 through 13, 17, 18, 20, and 24 from the April 25 demands as written because they sought factual information. The court modified and required Rubin to answer Interrogatory Nos. 4, 6, 14, 16, 21, and 22.
Rubin did not have to answer Interrogatory Nos. 7, 19, and 23 because they sought legal conclusions. She also did not have to answer Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 25 because the court found them irrelevant.
Sanctions
Kenny asked the court to require Kiss to reimburse her for the cost of preparing objections to his discovery demands. The court found that Kiss was attempting to comply with the local rules, had revised his demands in response to the defendants’ objections, and was not serving the demands to harass the defendants. Because sanctions were not warranted, the court declined to impose them.
Disposition
The court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ motions. It directed Kenny and Rubin to respond to the April 25 and April 30 demands as specified in the order by June 6, 2025. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motions and mail a copy of the order to Kiss.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.