Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Balchem Corporation

Background

This order concerns defendants’ objections to discovery demands served by plaintiff pro se, meaning without a lawyer. The opinion identifies the underlying case as a wrongful-termination case. Plaintiff served 635 requests for admission, later increasing the total to 737. Defendants argued that the requests were excessive, lengthy, complex, irrelevant, argumentative, and included unnecessary vulgar and inflammatory language. Plaintiff maintained that the requests reflected his preferred discovery approach and addressed defendants’ defenses and allegedly false representations.

Defendants also objected to deposition notices for Theodore Harris, Michael Sestrick, Travis Larsen, and Balchem Corporation’s vice presidents or directors of sales and marketing for encapsulates in the animal and human nutrition market. They argued that depositions of senior executives are generally disfavored because they may disrupt business or become harassing. Plaintiff stated that he intended to conduct depositions by written questions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 31. He also sought to administer timed “quizzes” during depositions.

Requests for Admission

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 permits requests to admit facts, the application of law to facts, opinions about either, and the authenticity of documents. The court explained that requests for admission are intended to narrow the issues, not to replace interrogatories, document requests, or depositions. Requests should be simple, direct, and answerable by admitting or denying them.

The court agreed that the number of requests was not proportional to the needs of the case and that a protective order was warranted to prevent oppression or undue burden under Rule 26. The court also found, based on a brief review, that many requests were complex, argumentative, and unlikely to produce helpful admissions. It further agreed that some demands used vulgar sexual terminology unrelated to the claims and appeared calculated to embarrass defendants or their counsel. The court directed plaintiff to avoid unnecessary scatological references in future discovery demands.

The court granted defendants a protective order as to plaintiff’s requests for admission, and defendants were not required to respond to them further.

Deposition Notices

The court noted that highly placed executives are not immune from discovery. Harris, Sestrick, and Larsen remained defendants in the action, giving plaintiff a presumptive right to depose them. The court also found that depositions by written questions under Rule 31 would be significantly less disruptive than oral examinations under Rule 30 and should be conducted at Balchem’s place of business.

The court denied defendants’ request to preclude or defer these depositions, without prejudice to any later request for reasonable time limits.

Deposition Quizzes

The court ruled that timed “quizzes” are not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff could ask questions during depositions but could not administer quizzes or impose time limits on witnesses. The Clerk was requested to close the docket entry associated with defendants’ discovery-objection letter.

Disposition

Paul E. Davison, U.S. Magistrate Judge, granted the protective order concerning the requests for admission; denied, without prejudice to a request for reasonable time limits, defendants’ request to preclude or defer the specified depositions; and declined to permit timed deposition quizzes.