Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Riley v. United Air Lines, Inc.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDiscoveryInterrogatoriesMotions to CompelRule 33Rule 37(a)interrogatoriesmotion to compel

Facts

In this action for damages arising from plaintiff's husband's death, plaintiff served interrogatories on defendant, and after a compromise over form, defendant answered them. Plaintiff challenged three categories of answers: statements that defendant had no "corporate knowledge," statements that defendant lacked sufficient information for now but would answer after discovery, and answers plaintiff claimed were unresponsive. Defendant argued the motion should be denied because plaintiff failed to comply technically with a local rule and because the motion was untimely. Plaintiff explained that some delay resulted from unsuccessful efforts to obtain the information through depositions.

Issue

Whether defendant's interrogatory answers were sufficient where defendant claimed no "corporate knowledge," deferred answering until after discovery, or gave facially unresponsive responses, and whether plaintiff's motion to compel further answers was procedurally barred by local-rule noncompliance or untimeliness.

Rule

When a party does not object to interrogatories, it must answer them with whatever information it presently has, regardless of when or from whom it acquired that information, including information obtained from third persons. If no one under the party's control has information from any source, the party may so state under oath, and if it has only limited information, it may so state and identify the source without admitting the information's accuracy. A motion under Rule 37(a) to compel further answers is not subject to an implied ten-day limit from Rule 33, but must be made within a reasonable time; technical noncompliance with a local formatting rule does not defeat the motion where the objections are clearly presented and no sanction is specified.

🔒

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 products-liability suit in Chicago federal court, Lena Ortiz served interrogatories on North Harbor Tools, Inc. asking what caused a machine guard to fail. North Harbor did not object, but answered that it had "no company knowledge" because the engineers who designed the guard had retired; however, its claims department already possessed interview summaries from outside consultants and former mechanics.

If Lena moves to compel a further answer, how should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority rule is that when a party does not object to an interrogatory, it must answer with whatever information it presently has, regardless of when or from whom it acquired that information. A response framed as lack of "company knowledge" is insufficient if the party already has relevant information from third persons. The responding party may identify the source and need not vouch for accuracy merely because the information came from third parties. (Derived from Riley v. United Air Lines, Inc. (n.d.).)