“NOT FOR PUBLICATION.



IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DIVISION OF ST. CROIX



DOREEN DEPUSOIR,

Plaintiff, | SX-09-CV-023



Vv.

CARLOS FURNITURE STORE,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION



THIS MATTER came before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Propound

Excess Interrogatories, filed on January 5, 2011. On January 14, 2011, Plaintiff filed an

Opposition to Defendant’s Motion. On January 31, 2011, Defendant filed a Reply to Plaintiff's



Opposition.



FACTS



On January 16, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendant. The Parties have

since started the discovery process to prepare for trial. On February 26, 2009, Defendant served

the First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff, where twenty-two (22) interrogatories were

propounded. On October 15, 2009, Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s First Set of

Interrogatories. Defendant pointed out that, despite being asked specifically whether she had

been involved in any prior accidents, Plaintiff did not reveal in her October 15, 2009 response



that she had been in a previous car accident in 2003 and had suffered injuries! On March 22,



' Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Response:



Interrogatory No. 10. Set forth in detail each and every injury, physical or mental, you have ever sustained, or for

which you have ever been under a doctor's care prior to or subsequent to this incident, occurrence or accident which

was in any way similar or dissimilar to those alleged in your Complaint.



Response. About two years ago | fell down at church and sprained my right ankle.



Interrogatory No.13. Set forth in detail any accidents, falls, slips, or assaults, of any kind or nature involving you

which occurred prior to or subsequent to the incident, occurrence or accident alleged in your Complaint. Please

include in your answer the pertinent dates.



Response. About two years ago | fell down at church and sprained my right ankle.

DOREEN DEPUSOIR v. CARLOS FURNITURE STORE,

SX-09-CV-023



Memorandum Opinion



Page 2



2010, Plaintiff supplemented her response to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories to include

that she had been involved in a previous car accident in 2003 where she suffered neck and lower

back injuries? On April 29, 2010, Defendant served the Supplemental Interrogatories to

Plaintiff, where fourteen (14) interrogatories were propounded. On September 8, 2010,

Defendant took Plaintiff's deposition. Defendant alleges that Plaintiff did not reveal any further

facts or information regarding her 2003 car accident. However, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant

could have but did not ask Plaintiff at the deposition for more information regarding her 2003 car

accident. On December 14, 2010, Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s Supplemental

Interrogatories—Plaintiff answered Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2 but objected and refused to

answer Interrogatories Nos. 3-14 for exceeding the allowable limit of twenty-five (25)



interrogatories pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a).?



DISCUSSION



? Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiff , Plaintiff's Response and Plaintiff's Supplemental Response:

Interrogatory No. 10. Set forth in detail each and every injury, physical or mental, you have ever sustained, or for



which you have ever been under a doctor's care prior to or subsequent to this incident, occurrence or accident which

was in any way similar or dissimilar to those alleged in your Complaint.



Response. About two years ago | fell down at church and sprained my right ankle.

Supplemental Response. | was in a car accident some time in 2003 where I suffered neck and lower back

injuries.

Interrogatory No.13. Set forth in detail any accidents, falls, slips, or assaults, of any kind or nature involving you

which occurred prior to or subsequent to the incident, occurrence or accident alleged in your Complaint. Please



include in your answer the pertinent dates.

Response. About two years ago | fell down at church and sprained my right ankle.



Supplemental Response. | was in a car accident some time in 2003 where I suffered neck and lower back

injuries.

3 In Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Propound Excess Interrogatories, Defendant stated that, “Plaintiff objected to

and refused to respond to eleven (11) interrogatories as being beyond the allowable limit of interrogatories pursuant



to Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1).” However, an inspection of Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Supplemental

Interrogatories revealed that Plaintiff objected to and refused to respond to twelve (12) interrogatories instead of



eleven (11).

DOREEN DEPUSOIR v. CARLOS FURNITURE STORE,

SX-09-CV-023



Memorandum Opinion



Page 3



Fed. R. Civ. P. 33



Fed. R. Civ. P. (hereinafter, the “Rules”) 33(a) provides that a party may not serve in

excess of twenty-five (25) interrogatories unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court.

Rule 33(b)(2) provides that answers and objections to the interrogatories shall be served within

thirty (30) days after service of the interrogatories unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the

court. Rules 33(b)(4) states that, “Any ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless

the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.” In Joseph v. General Engineering Co., the

District Court of the Virgin Islands noted that “[T]he law is well settled that a party’s failure to

object to interrogatories within thirty (30) days of service thereof is considered a waiver of any

objections they might have had.” Citations and footnotes omitted. 2002 WL 31618810, *1

(D.V.I. 2002). See also Felix v. American Airlines, Inc., 2003 WL 21466922 (D.V.I. 2003) (“It

has been the practice of this Court to allow excess interrogatories that were not timely objected

to, notwithstanding that it has also been the common practice of this Court to consider particular

objections to such interrogatories raised only in opposition to a motion to compel.”).



The Court may grant leave to serve additional interrogatories to the extent consistent with

Rule 26(b)(2). Rule 26(b)(2)(C) provides that, “the court must limit the frequency or extent of

discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it determines that: (i) the discovery

sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that

is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had

ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the burden or

expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case,

the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the



action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.”

DOREEN DEPUSOIR v. CARLOS FURNITURE STORE,

SX-09-CV-023



Memorandum Opinion



Page 4

Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Propound Excess Interrogatories



Defendant argues that when Plaintiff filed her answers and objections over seven (7)

months after being served with Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories, Plaintiff waived her

rights to object to the excess interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4). See also Joseph, 2002

WL 31618810; see also Felix, 2003 WL 21466922. Defendant points out that the excess

interrogatories do not fall within the categories enumerated in Rule 26(b)(C). Accordingly,

Defendant requests the Court to grant its Motion for Leave to Propound Excess Interrogatories.



Plaintiff argues that the Court should deny Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Propound

Excess Interrogatories. First, Plaintiff argues that the discovery sought is “unreasonably

cumulative and duplicative, and was obtainable from some other source that was more

convenient, less burdensome and less expensive.” Plaintiff believes that the information

Defendant is seeking through the Supplemental Interrogatories could have been obtained at the

September 8, 2010 deposition with Plaintiff. Additionally, Plaintiff points out that Defendant

had already inquired and she had already answered to Defendant’s questions regarding Plaintiff's

accidents and injuries prior to and/or subsequent to the accident at issue in this matter. Second,

Plaintiff argues that Defendant had ample opportunity by discovery to obtain the information

sought in the Supplemental Interrogatories, such as the September 8, 2010 deposition with

Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff points out that said information were also discoverable through

Defendant’s Supplemental Demand for Production of Documents to Plaintiff, and Plaintiff had

provided all the information requested. “If in fact Plaintiff was so injured, her medical records

which have been produced would so reflect making the propounding of excess interrogatories



unnecessary and burdensome.” Pl.’s Opposition to Def.’s Mot. for Leave to Propound Excess

DOREEN DEPUSOIR v. CARLOS FURNITURE STORE,

SX-09-CV-023



Memorandum Opinion



Page 5



Interrogatories, 5. Third, Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s goal in propounding the excess

interrogatories is to increase Plaintiff's costs and delay the case.



Defendant disagrees with Plaintiffs assertions. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not

been forthcoming with any additional facts or details regarding the 2003 accident. Therefore, the

discovery sought is not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, nor is the information available

from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive. Defendant also

argues that having Plaintiff's medical records does not substitute Plaintiff's responses to the

Supplemental Interrogatories. “(T]he succinct and narrow interrogatories Defendant wishes to

put forth are the most efficient method of discovering the information necessary to proceed in

this case.” Def.’s Reply to Pl.’s Opposition to Def.’s Motion for Leave to Propound Excess

Interrogatories, 6. Additionally, Defendant argues that the benefit of the proposed discovery

outweighs the burden and expense.



The Court will grant Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Propound Excess Interrogatories.

Plaintiff was served with Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories on April 29, 2010. Plaintiff

waited until December 14, 2010 to respond to Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories, where

Plaintiff included brief answers to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2, and objected to Interrogatory Nos.

3-14 for exceeding the allowable limit of interrogatories under Rule 33(a). Plaintiff's answers

and objections are untimely under Rule 33(b)(2). It appears that Plaintiff wishes to reap the

benefits of the Rules’ limitation on interrogatories on one hand while shirking the responsibilities

required under the Rules to file timely answers and objections. Pursuant to Rules 33(b)(4),

Defendant’s untimely response to Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories constitutes a waiver

of her objections. See Joseph, 2002 WL 31618810. Moreover, it seems rather disingenuous of



Plaintiff to accuse Defendant of delaying the case right now, after she waited for over seven (7)

DOREEN DEPUSOIR v. CARLOS FURNITURE STORE,

SX-09-CV-023



Memorandum Opinion



Page 6



months to respond to Defendant’s Supplemental Interrogatories. Nonetheless, Defendant is not

without faults here. Defendant could have obtained the information sought in the Supplemental

Interrogatories at the September 8, 2010 deposition with Plaintiff. With both Parties’ interest in

mind, the Court will grant Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Propound Excess Interrogatories but

will have Defendant bear the costs and expenses of Plaintiff responding to the Supplemental

Interrogatories.



CONCLUSION



The Court will issue an order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion.



, 2011.



n

DONE and so ORDERED this |” day of Februa



ATTEST: y

Venetia Harvey- Velazquez A4IAROLD W.L. WILLOCKS ”

Clerk o Judge of the Superior Court

By:

pas E, (hdl E A RUE COPY

CERTIFIED TO B

This ay of ZS: 20 Zo



VENETIA H. VELAZQUEZ, ESQ.



CLERK OF THE COQURT_

By “C= ~ court Clerk 7