DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. CROIX
5
TAMICA FRASER,
5
5
Plaintiff,
5
2005-CV-0129
v.
5
5
KMART CORPORATION,
5
5
Defendants. 5
__________________________________________5
TO:
Natalie Nelson Tang How, Esq.
Lee J. Rohn, Esq.
Sharmaine Davis-Braithwaite, Esq.
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
THIS MATTER came before the Court upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses
to Discovery From Defendant (Docket No. 48) and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant
to Provide Complete Supplemental Responses to Interrogatories (Docket No. 75).
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Discovery From Defendant (Docket No.
48) concerns seven (7) specific interrogatories, namely, Interrogatory Nos. 6, 12, 15, 17, 20,
21, and 24.  The Court will address each interrogatory ad seriatim.
Interrogatory No. 6: The interrogatory specifically requests information regarding
Plaintiff’s termination.  Defendant responded that Plaintiff voluntarily resigned her
position.  Defendant has responded adequately, and no further response is required.
Case: 1:05-cv-00129-TJS   Document #: 84   Filed: 08/06/07   Page 1 of 7
Fraser v. Kmart Corporation
2005-CV-0129
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel
Page 2
Interrogatory No. 12: The interrogatory specifically requests information regarding
instances of sexual harassment or retaliation against Plaintiff by Anthony Niles.  Defendant
responded that it knows of no such instances.  While Plaintiff attempts to use Fed. R. Civ.
P. 26(g) to force Defendant to conduct an investigation to find information of which it
claims no knowledge, Rule 26(g) does not require such an undertaking.  Only when a
responding party “lacks necessary information to make a full, fair and a specific answer
to an interrogatory” will it be required to “set forth in detail the efforts made to obtain the
information.”  Miller v. Doctor’s General Hospital, 76 F.R.D. 136, 140 (W.D. Okla. 1977) (citing
International Fertilizer & Chemical Corp. v. Brasileiro, 21 F.R.D. 193 (S.D.N.Y. 1957)).
Obviously, Defendant cannot be made to disclose information which it does not have.
Defendant has given a “full, fair and a specific answer” to the interrogatory.  Thus,
Defendant has responded adequately, and no further response is required.
Interrogatory No. 15: This interrogatory is identical to Interrogatory No. 15, except it
identifies other persons who allegedly sexually harassed or retaliated against Plaintiff.
Defendant originally responded that it knew of no such instances.  Thereafter, Defendant
supplemented its response, and claims that the dispute has been resolved.  The Court finds
that no further supplementation is required.
Case: 1:05-cv-00129-TJS   Document #: 84   Filed: 08/06/07   Page 2 of 7
Fraser v. Kmart Corporation
2005-CV-0129
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel
Page 3
Interrogatory No. 17: The interrogatory requests information regarding the basis for
Plaintiff “being assigned to work the floor.”  Defendant objected that the phrase “work the
floor” was vague, but continued that Plaintiff was not given special assignments other than
her regular assigned duties associated with her position of Unit Pricing Manager.  The
Court finds that Defendant has responded adequately and that no further response is
required.
Interrogatory No. 20: The interrogatory requests Defendant’s policies, procedures, etc.
regarding sexual harassment and/or retaliation and how it communicated such to certain
named individuals.  Defendant objected that the request was overly broad, but did respond
that its employees are instructed and trained in identifying and investigating sexual
harassment and other types of discrimination.  The Court will instruct Defendant to
identify specific company policies, procedures, etc., if they exist and whether such
documents/information were given to the identified individuals or otherwise state that
such formal policies do not exist.
Interrogatory No. 21: The interrogatory seeks information regarding Defendant’s
monitoring of certain named employees and the identity of each person involved.  Plaintiff
contends that Defendant failed to identify each person involved or who participated in the
monitoring or decision not to monitor.  Defendant does not specifically object to such
Case: 1:05-cv-00129-TJS   Document #: 84   Filed: 08/06/07   Page 3 of 7
Fraser v. Kmart Corporation
2005-CV-0129
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel
Page 4
identification.  Consequently, the Court will order Defendant to supplement its response
with the identity of any person(s) involved in such decision.
Interrogatory No. 24: The interrogatory requests information relation to any matter, etc.
involving allegations of sexual harassment against Defendant and/or certain named
employees were named or identified.  Defendant responded that it only knew of one other
case involving a different Plaintiff filed against Defendant.  As with Interrogatory No. 12,
Plaintiff contends that Defendant is required to make a “reasonable inquiry.”  The Court
finds that Defendant’s response is adequate.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) states that the “signature
of the attorney or party constitutes a certification that to the signer’s knowledge,
information, and belief, formed after a reasonable inquiry, the disclosure is complete and
correct as of the time it is made.”  The Court finds that Defendant’s response that it “knows
of no other matters” and its certification that such response was complete and correct at the
time it was made are sufficient.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Complete Supplemental
Responses to Interrogatories (Docket No. 75) concerns Defendant’s supplemental responses
to four (4) interrogatories, specifically Interrogatory Nos. 1, 7, 9, and 10.  The Court will
address each interrogatory ad seriatim.
Case: 1:05-cv-00129-TJS   Document #: 84   Filed: 08/06/07   Page 4 of 7
Fraser v. Kmart Corporation
2005-CV-0129
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel
Page 5
Interrogatory No. 1: Plaintiff claims that Defendant “failed to indicate what reasonable
inquiry was conducted.”  In fact, Plaintiff specifically requests the Court to “order
defendant to further supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 1 to indicate Defendant’s
reasonable inquiry.  However, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(g) does not require the respondent to
provide such details.  Rule 26(g), as cited by the Court herein, merely states that by signing
the responses, the respondent certifies that the answers, “after reasonable inquiry” are
“complete and correct as of the time it is made.”  While the language of the Rule implicitly
directs the respondent to make such inquiry, the Rule does not require the respondent to
include the details of such inquiry within the answers.  Based upon the Court’s reading and
application of the Rule, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s request.
Interrogatory No. 7: Plaintiff claims that “Defendant failed to include complaints Plaintiff
made to Niles as to discrimination.”  However, the Interrogatory is devoid of a request for
complaints of discrimination.  The Interrogatory states, “ Set forth . . . regarding
unionization, sexualy behavior, and/or plaintiff allegedly being sexually harassed, verbally
abuse, physically abused, threatened, confronted, or retaliated against . . . .”  Plaintiff also
claims that Defendant “failed to answer as to any form of communication made regarding
unionization.”  Defendant responded that Plaintiff complained of sexual harassment and
a hostile work environment.  In addition, Defendant counters that Plaintiff made no
Case: 1:05-cv-00129-TJS   Document #: 84   Filed: 08/06/07   Page 5 of 7
Fraser v. Kmart Corporation
2005-CV-0129
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel
Page 6
complaints about discrimination.  The Court finds that the request for information
regarding unionization is irrelevant, inasmuch as unionization is not at issue, nor has it
ever been put into issue by Plaintiff.  Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds Defendant
has responded adequately and no further supplementation is required.
Interrogatory No. 9: The Court finds, based upon Defendant’s contention that it had “no
complaints about any allegedly harassing conduct by Anthony Niles ‘pre-EEOC’ filings
and its response to Interrogatory No. 11 the sufficiency of which Plaintiff has not
complained, that Defendant has response adequately and no further supplementation is
required.
Interrogatory No. 10: The Court finds, based upon Defendant’s contention that it had “no
complaints about any allegedly harassing conduct by Anthony Niles ‘pre-EEOC’ filings
and its response to Interrogatory No. 11 the sufficiency of which Plaintiff has not
complained, that Defendant has response adequately and no further supplementation is
required.
Accordingly, it is now hereby ORDERED:
1.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Docket No. 48) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART.
Case: 1:05-cv-00129-TJS   Document #: 84   Filed: 08/06/07   Page 6 of 7
Fraser v. Kmart Corporation
2005-CV-0129
Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Motions to Compel
Page 7
2.
In accordance with the Court’s findings hereinabove, Defendant shall
supplement its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 20 and 21.
3.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendant to Provide Complete Supplemental
Responses to Interrogatories (Docket No. 75) is DENIED.
ENTER:
Dated: August 6, 2007
                                /s/                                   
GEORGE W. CANNON, JR.                      
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case: 1:05-cv-00129-TJS   Document #: 84   Filed: 08/06/07   Page 7 of 7