Lewis v. City of Burnsville

Background

The defendants filed a motion to compel discovery, and the court held a hearing on June 23, 2020. The disputes concerned document requests and interrogatories—written questions that must generally be answered separately and fully under oath. The court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, which limits discovery to nonprivileged information relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. It also applied Rules 33 and 34, which govern interrogatories and document requests.

Ruling on specific discovery

The court granted the motion as to Interrogatories Nos. 5, 8, 12, 16, 19, 20, and 21. For each, if Linda Lewis had not already sought responsive information from the next of kin, she was required to do so and supplement her interrogatory answers. For some of those interrogatories, the court also permitted supplementation with appropriate authorizations giving defendants access to the requested information.

The court also granted the motion as to Request for Production No. 5. The order required Lewis to seek responsive information from the next of kin, if she had not already done so, and supplement her response. Lewis was required to complete this supplementation by August 3, 2020 and certify that she had sought responsive information from the next of kin. The court denied the request to strike objections.

Damages discovery

The court addressed Interrogatory No. 17 and Request for Production No. 22, which concerned damages. To the extent Lewis had not sought responsive information from the next of kin, she was required to do so and supplement her answers and documents. If the interrogatory was treated as a contention interrogatory—one asking a party to state a position about the facts or law—the court ruled that it was not premature, and Lewis had to provide information known at that time.

The damages dispute focused on non-economic damages, including claimed losses involving pain and suffering, emotional distress, counsel and guidance, advice, comfort, assistance, companionship, protection, and lost time together. The court ruled that if Lewis intended to ask the jury for a specific dollar amount, or to suggest a figure or range, she had to disclose that amount or range and its basis during discovery. The court further required her to disclose responsive information if she intended to present evidence supporting a non-economic damages award, even without suggesting a specific amount. She had to supplement her initial disclosures and respond to relevant written discovery about damages by October 1, 2020.

Scheduling request and disposition

Lewis did not object to defendants’ request to amend the scheduling order or to the specific proposals. The court stated that it would extend some deadlines in a separate order but would not adopt all of defendants’ proposals. The final order granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to compel.