Opinion
No. 1:11-cv-01624-TWP-DKL
01-03-2013
Order Denying Motion to Strike Amended Answer
The motion to strike the amended answer filed by the State defendants on December 15, 2012, has been considered. Although the thrust of the motion to strike is legitimate, the motion to strike [Dkt. 36] is denied. The plaintiff may explore the factual bases for the affirmative defenses through what is known as "contention interrogatories."
"[C]ontention interrogatories" refers to several types of questions. They may ask another party to indicate what it contends, to state all the facts on which it bases its contentions, to state all the evidence on which it bases its contentions, or to explain how the law applies to the facts. They are distinct from interrogatories that request identification of witnesses or documents that bear on the allegations.McCarthy v. Paine Webber Group, Inc., 168 F.R.D. 448, 450 (D.Conn. 1996) (citing In re Convergent Technologies Securities Lit., 108 F.R.D. 328, 332-333 (N.D.Ca. 1985)); see also R. Braun Medical, Inc. V. Abbott Laboratories, 155 F.R.D. 525, 527 (E.D.Pa. 1994) (defining contention discovery as, inter alia, that which asks a party to "state all the facts upon which it bases a contention"); Leotta v. Firestone Tire and Rubber, 1989 WL 51797, at *2-3 (E.D.Pa. May 12, 1989)(explaining "contention interrogatories" embrace questions asking whether a party makes some specified contention, or asking a party to state all the facts or evidence on which it bases some specified contention).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
Hon. Tanya Walton Pratt, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
Distribution: Anthony R. Meineke
147748
Pendleton Correctional Facility
Inmate Mail/Parcels
4490 West Reformatory Road
Pendleton, IN 46064
Electronically Registered Counsel