Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Cable & Computer Technology, Inc. v. Lockheed Saunders, Inc.

United States District Court for the Central District of California · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDiscoveryInterrogatoriesSanctionsRule 26(b)(1)Rule 33Rule 26(e)contention interrogatories

Facts

Plaintiff alleged various contract, fraud, interference, unfair competition, and Cartwright Act claims arising from defendants' conduct in connection with military computer upgrade projects. During discovery, defendants served special interrogatories asking plaintiff to describe its damages, state facts supporting specified allegations in the complaint, and identify documents, statements, or actions alleged in the complaint. Plaintiff objected to interrogatories nos. 1, 5 through 11, and 14 through 16 on the ground that they were improper contention interrogatories. Separately, plaintiff's counsel filed and then withdrew a motion to compel depositions without complying with local meet-and-confer and joint-stipulation requirements.

Issue

Whether plaintiff could refuse to answer interrogatories seeking present factual bases for its allegations and damages on the ground that they were contention interrogatories. Also, whether sanctions were warranted for plaintiff counsel's filing of a discovery motion without complying with local procedural requirements.

Rule

Under Rules 26(b)(1) and 33, discovery is construed broadly, and interrogatories may seek any nonprivileged matter relevant to the subject matter involved, including opinions or contentions relating to fact or the application of law to fact. A contention interrogatory is not objectionable merely because it asks for a party's contentions or supporting facts; the burden remains on the party resisting discovery to clarify, explain, and support its objections. A party must answer such interrogatories with the information it presently possesses and later supplement or amend under Rule 26(e), and courts may sanction failure to comply with local discovery-motion rules.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal contract and fraud action in Denver, plaintiff North Peak Systems served a complaint alleging that defendant Alder Ridge Components made multiple false assurances during negotiations. Alder Ridge then served interrogatories asking North Peak to state all facts supporting four specified allegations in the complaint. North Peak objected only that the requests were improper contention interrogatories because discovery had barely begun.

How should the court most likely rule on a motion to compel?

Explanation. Under the majority opinion, contention interrogatories are treated like other interrogatories. There is no automatic bar merely because an interrogatory asks for an opinion, contention, or facts supporting the application of law to fact. The burden remains on the resisting party to justify its objection, and a party must answer with the information it currently has, then supplement later under Rule 26(e) if necessary.