Alix v. McKinsey & Co., Inc.

Background

Alix filed a letter-motion to compel discovery from McKinsey and other defendants. The motion concerned documents associated with MIO and interrogatories—written questions that a party must answer under oath.

McKinsey represented that it would work with MIO’s separate counsel to collect and produce relevant MIO documents responsive to requests served on McKinsey. The court stated that the parties therefore had no ripe dispute requiring a ruling on that issue. The court also noted that Alix had demanded that McKinsey revise its responses within three business days or produce documents immediately, while McKinsey had committed to providing responses promptly.

Interrogatory limit

Rule 33(a) generally permits a party to serve no more than 25 written interrogatories, including discrete subparts, unless the court grants permission for more. The court agreed that Alix’s interrogatories exceeded that limit. In particular, Interrogatory 2 contained 72 subparts and Interrogatory 3 contained 90 subparts. The requests sought separate information for each of 18 bankruptcy cases, and the court determined that the separate subparts sought independently answerable information and therefore counted separately.

The court rejected Alix’s argument that Interrogatories 2 and 3 each counted as only one interrogatory. It also declined to grant Alix’s belated request for permission to exceed Rule 33’s limit. The court stated that Alix could serve new interrogatories, subject to the Rule 33 limit, by May 13, 2024.

Ruling

Judge Jesse M. Furman denied Alix’s letter-motion. The court ruled that the MIO-related issue was moot or not ripe in light of McKinsey’s representation that it would promptly provide responses, agreed that Alix’s interrogatories exceeded the permitted number, and declined to retroactively approve the excess. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate ECF No. 380.