Rouviere v. Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc.

Background

This is a medical-device product-liability case concerning injuries allegedly sustained by Jodi Rouviere after receiving a hip implant. The plaintiffs allege that hip-replacement components manufactured by DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. and Howmedica Osteonics Corp. were defective in their manufacture, warnings, and design.

Discovery had been ongoing since approximately January 2019. Fact discovery was scheduled to end on April 17, 2020, and expert discovery was scheduled to end on August 17, 2020. The plaintiffs served 25 interrogatories on DePuy on February 21, 2019, and filed a letter motion seeking further responses to 22 of them.

Parties’ Positions

The plaintiffs argued that DePuy’s responses were late, that its objections were improper, and that DePuy improperly produced documents in response to some interrogatories. They also argued that the information they sought was relevant and that their interrogatories were an efficient discovery method. In reply, they complained that some produced documents were unreadable, smeared, or incomplete.

DePuy argued that its responses were timely and complete, that the interrogatories violated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York’s Local Civil Rule 33.3, and that the requested information was irrelevant or properly provided through business records.

Court’s Analysis

The court found that DePuy’s responses were timely. It also concluded that the interrogatories repeatedly violated Local Civil Rule 33.3(a), which generally limits interrogatories at the beginning of discovery to questions seeking witness names, damage calculations, and information about relevant documents or other physical evidence. The court noted that the plaintiffs had previously agreed to withdraw two interrogatories to comply with that rule.

The court further stated that the plaintiffs’ interrogatories violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33’s limit of 25 interrogatories, including discrete subparts. Because the interrogatories at issue did not concern witness names, damages, or documents, the court denied the motion to compel.

The court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that interrogatories were the most efficient discovery method and identified questioning a designated corporate representative under Rule 30(b)(6) as a possible way to obtain relevant information. The court did not resolve the parties’ dispute about discovery concerning the Biolox Head because that dispute arose from the improper interrogatories. It directed the parties to confer in good faith about future discovery disputes.

The court also held that Rule 33(d) permits a responding party to produce business records in response to an interrogatory. It accepted DePuy’s explanation of what it had produced, but directed the parties to meet and confer about documents that were unreadable, smeared, or incomplete and ordered DePuy to promptly remedy any defects.

Disposition

The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to their interrogatories. The order was signed by Stewart D. Aaron, United States Magistrate Judge.