United States of America v. Academy Mortgage Corporation

Background

This case is a qui tam lawsuit under the False Claims Act. Gwen Thrower, identified as the relator—the private person pursuing the claim on behalf of the government—alleges that Academy Mortgage Corporation falsely certified compliance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development regulations. According to the allegations described in the opinion, those certifications enabled Academy to obtain government insurance on mortgage loans it underwrote and to make claims on those loans.

On September 27, 2018, Thrower served Academy with interrogatories numbered 1 through 18. Academy initially objected to the interrogatories on several grounds, including that they exceeded the number allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1). In the response fields for the interrogatories, Academy wrote “N/A.”

Magistrate Judge’s Discovery Order

On May 11, 2021, Academy supplemented some of its responses. It did not supplement its response to interrogatory 5. For interrogatories 4 and 6, Academy referred generally to its responses to requests for production and, where applicable, its other interrogatory responses. Those references purportedly described produced documents, Bates numbers, or privilege logs, but did not identify specific responsive documents.

The parties later submitted a joint discovery letter to Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim. Thrower asked to withdraw unanswered interrogatories 4 through 18. Academy argued that Thrower was attempting to increase the number of interrogatories she could submit and that Academy had answered interrogatories 4 through 6.

On July 6, 2021, Judge Kim ordered that Thrower could withdraw unanswered interrogatories 4 through 18. Academy then asked Judge Chen for relief from that non-dispositive pretrial order, seeking to prevent Thrower from withdrawing interrogatories 4, 5, and 6.

Standard of Review

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a district judge may modify or set aside a magistrate judge’s order on a non-dispositive pretrial matter only if the order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. The reviewing judge may not simply substitute his judgment for the magistrate judge’s judgment.

Court’s Analysis

The central issue was whether Academy’s supplemental responses to interrogatories 4, 5, and 6 were sufficient answers under Rule 33.

First, Academy argued that its remaining objections counted as answers. The court rejected that argument because Rule 33 requires each interrogatory to be answered separately and fully in writing under oath to the extent it is not objected to. The court distinguished answers from objections and concluded that Academy’s objections were not answers.

Second, Academy argued that its supplemental responses answered interrogatories 4 and 6 by referring to other discovery materials. Rule 33(d) permits a responding party to identify business records that contain the requested information, but requires the party to specify the records in enough detail for the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could. The court found Academy’s references too vague because they did not identify which specific document-request responses or interrogatory responses answered interrogatories 4 and 6, and did not identify the relevant Bates numbers. The court also noted that Academy’s continuing objections made it difficult to determine whether the references were intended as answers.

Disposition

The court concluded that interrogatories 4, 5, and 6 were unanswered and that Thrower could withdraw them under Judge Kim’s order. Judge Chen denied Academy’s motion for relief from the magistrate judge’s non-dispositive order. The order disposed of Docket No. 250.