United States District Court, S.D. New York
May 4, 2004.
CAROLYN FEARS, et al., Plaintiffs, -against- WILHELMINA MODEL AGENCY, INC., et al., Defendants
The opinion of the court was delivered by: HENRY PITMAN, Magistrate Judge
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
By notice of motion dated September 22, 2003 (Docket Item 263),
defendants Click Model Management and Next Management Company move for
sanctions pursuant to Rules 26, 37(b) and 41(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure for plaintiffs' failure to properly respond to
interrogatories.*fn1 For the reasons stated below, Click's and Next's
motion is granted in part and denied in part.
This is an anti-trust case which has been certified as a class action
in which plaintiffs allege that defendants have conspired to fix prices
in the modeling industry. The allegations and principal defenses are set
forth in the Opinion of the Honorable Harold Baer, Jr., United States District Judge, granting
in part and denying in part defendants' motion for summary judgment,
familiarity with which is assumed. Fears v. Wilhelmina Model Agency,
Inc., 02 Civ. 4911 (HB), 2004 WL 594396 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 23, 2004).
The current disputes arise out of interrogatories served by Click and
Next in the Spring of 2003. Click served its First Set of Interrogatories
on the Merits on June 16, 20031 Plaintiffs failed to respond to these
interrogatories in a timely manner, and I issued an Order on July 22,
2003 finding that plaintiffs' unjustified failure to respond to the
interrogatories in a timely manner resulted in a waiver of all objections
and directing plaintiffs to respond to Click's interrogatories no later
than July 25, 2003 (Docket Item 188). The deadline was subsequently
extended by Judge Baer to July 30, 2003.
On July 30, 2003, plaintiffs served as interrogatory answers what can
best be characterized as an outline of their case. The document served on
July 30, 2003 did not, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute
answers to Click's specific interrogatories in conformity with Rule 33.
Accordingly, on August 14, 2003, I issued a sanction against plaintiffs
in the amount of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) for serving a patently
deficient interrogatory response (see Docket Item 198). Subsequent to their July 30, 2003 "answers", but before my August 14,
2003 Order, plaintiffs also served a document entitled "Plaintiffs'
Responses to Defendant Click Model Management Inc.'s First Set Of
Interrogatories Concerning The Merits", dated August 6, 2003 (Exhibit J
to the Affirmation of Olav A. Haazen, Esq., dated October 13, 2003
("Haazen Aff.")). Plaintiffs' August 6, 2003 interrogatory answers
responded to many of Click's interrogatories.
In addition to their August 6, 2003 interrogatory answers, plaintiffs
also served a document entitled "Supplemental Responses To Defendant
Click Model Management Inc.'s First Set Of Interrogatories Concerning The
Merits", dated September 4, 2003 (Exhibit 2 to the Declaration of Mark W.
Moody, Esq., dated September 19, 2003 ("Moody Decl.")). Notwithstanding
my Order dated July 22, 2003 which found that all of plaintiffs'
objections were waived, plaintiffs' September 4, 2003 supplemental
responses asserted objections to many of the interrogatories that
plaintiffs had answered in their August 6, 2003 interrogatory answers. In
addition, the September 4, 2003 supplemental responses did not indicate
on their face whether they were to be considered in conjunction with
plaintiffs' August 6, 2003 responses or whether they were intended to
substitute for plaintiffs' August 6, 2003 responses. The confusion concerning the status of the September 4, 2003
supplemental responses was compounded by some of the responses
themselves. For example, Click's Interrogatory No. 7 sought the identity
of individuals knowledgeable concerning the contacts of plaintiffs or
their representatives with law enforcement or other governmental agencies
with respect to this action or any of the conspiracies or causes of
action alleged in the pleadings. In their August 6, 2003 response,
plaintiffs idfentified Paul Verquil, Andrew Hayes, Olav Haazen, Christina
Lewicky, Jarrod Reich and G. Simone Chafik. In their September 4, 2003
supplemental responses, however, plaintiffs identified only Ms. Chafik.
Plaintiffs' September 4, 2003 supplemental responses nowhere explained
why the supplemental response contained only a sub-set of the information
previously provided in response to this interrogatory.
Finally, the confusion concerning the relationship between the August
6, 2003 and September 4, 2003 responses was further exacerbated by the
fact that plaintiffs' response to the present motion nowhere states that
the two sets of responses were intended to be considered in conjunction
with each other. Indeed, plaintiffs' written response to the pending
motion does not even cite the . . . August 6, 2003 interrogatory
responses as containing the information sought. Also at issue in this motion are Click's Third Set of Interrogatories
which was served on plaintiffs in mid-July, 2003. In September, 2003,
plaintiffs agreed to respond to these interrogatories "without objection"
(Moody Decl., Ex. 6), and plaintiffs served responses on or about
September 14, 2003 (Moody Decl. Ex. 7).
The issues concerning Next's interrogatories arise out of a similar
record. Next served interrogatories on plaintiffs on or about May 5, 2003
(Exhibit B to the Declaration of Robert J. Tolchin, Esq., dated September
22, 2003 ("Tolchin Decl.")). Plaintiffs served responses on or about June
9, 2003 in which they asserted a number of objections (Tolchin Decl. Ex.
C). After conducting a conference on July 7, 2003 during which
plaintiffs' responses to Next's interrogatories and other discovery issues
were discussed, I entered an Order on July 9, 2003 directing plaintiffs
to serve "complete answers to Next's interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,
8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17 and 18 through 36 no later than July 25, 2003"
(Docket Item 183; Tolchin Decl., Ex. G at 1-2). Judge Baer subsequently
extended the due date for the interrogatory responses to July 31, 2003.
As was the case with Click's interrogatories, plaintiffs did not serve
interrogatory answers on July 31, 2003. Rather, with respect to Next's
interrogatories, plaintiffs relied on the same outline that they served
in response to Click's interrogatories. On August 6, 2003, plaintiffs served responses to
the specific interrogatories identified in my July 9, 2003 Order (Tolchin
Decl., Ex. J). Plaintiffs also served supplemental responses to Next's
interrogatories on September 4, 2003 (Tolchin Decl., Ex. 0).
As discussed in more detail below, Click and Next are correct in their
contention that plaintiffs have failed to answer sufficiently a
substantial number of the interrogatories they had previously been
ordered to answer and that sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b) are
Plaintiffs' approach to Click's motion concerning Click's First Set of
Interrogatories has caused both Click's counsel and the Court to waste a
substantial amount of time for no reason whatsoever. Click's motion was
directed to Plaintiffs' September 4, 2003 Supplemental Responses. It was
not until oral argument, on April 12, 2004, that plaintiffs first claimed
that the interrogatories were answered in their August 6, 2003 responses.
Accordingly, the Court wasted time by considering the September 4, 2003
supplemental responses without the benefit of consideration of the August
6, 2003 responses, and Click's counsel was blind-sided by new arguments
made for the first time at oral argument. Plaintiffs' counsel has offered
no explanation whatsoever for their conduct except to claim that their firm was busy
handling other matters and that their response to the motion was not what
it should have been. Plaintiffs' omission here is not a trivial one. In a
number of instances, plaintiffs' August 6, 2003 responses contain
substantive answers to interrogatories that plaintiffs had been ordered
to answer (see, e.g., Interrogatory 11). Plaintiffs' September 4, 2003
supplemental responses contain objections to these same interrogatories
without any reference to the fact that the interrogatories had been
answered a month earlier (see, e.g., Interrogatory 11). This "shell game"
response to a discovery motion in which the Court and counsel are
compelled to guess as to which discovery response is operative cannot be
explained, defended or condoned. I now turn to the specific interrogatory
responses to which Click and Next have objected.
Plaintiffs' Responses To Click's First Set of
Interrogatory 1. The answer to this interrogatory is sufficient.
Interrogatories 2, 4, 6 and 10. These interrogatories seek
identification of witnesses with knowledge of certain events relevant to
the action. Although plaintiffs' responses identify a handful of
individuals by name, the responses also refer to other discovery
responses in such a manner that the net effect of the response is to identify almost every individual associated with the
defendants whose name has been mentioned in the lawsuit or in documents
produced by defendants and third parties. Such a response, which cannot
possibly be accurate, merely frustrates discovery. Accordingly, no later
than May 14, 2004, plaintiffs are directed to serve supplemental
responses to these interrogatories which identify by name individuals
with knowledge of the facts set forth in each `interrogatory.
Interrogatory 5.*fn2 Plaintiffs have taken the peculiar course of
responding to this interrogatory in their August 6, 2003 responses, but
objecting in their September 4, 2003 supplemental responses.
Nevertheless, the answers set forth in plaintiffs' August 6, 2003
responses are adequate.
Interrogatory 7. As noted above, this interrogatory seeks the
identification of individuals with knowledge of plaintiffs' or
plaintiffs' representatives' contacts with law enforcement or other
governmental officials concerning this litigation or any of the
conspiracies alleged in this litigation. As also noted above, the August
6, 2003 response identifies six names, while the September 4, 2003
supplemental response identifies only one of those six names. Responding
to the interrogatory in this manner is misleading and leaves Click to
guess whether the accurate response consists of the six names first provided or the
single name subsequently provided. Plaintiffs' counsel has proffered no
valid explanation for these inconsistent responses other than an
inability to give the interrogatories the attention they deserve due to
the press of other business. Plaintiffs are directed to serve an honest
and complete response to this interrogatory no later than May 14, 2004.
Interrogatory 8. This interrogatory seeks identification of documents
that identify "the individual or witness in response to Interrogatory
#7." Plaintiffs have responded by identifying a sign-in log maintained in
the building in which the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs is
located. Given the inartful nature of the interrogatory, I conclude, on
reflection, that the answer is sufficient. Read literally, the
interrogatory could be construed as seeking identification of every
document on which the individuals listed in response to Interrogatory 7
are named. Since such a construction would be absurd on its face, I
conclude that plaintiffs' response constitutes a good faith attempt to
answer the interrogatory.
Interrogatory 9. The answer to this interrogatory is sufficient.
Interrogatories 11-14. Interrogatories 11-14 are additional examples of
plaintiffs' odd tactic of responding in their August 6, 2003 responses,
but objecting in their September 4, 2003 supplemental response. This tactic is all the more bizarre given
the fact that I expressly found in my July 22, 2003 Order that all
objections were waived. Nevertheless, the answers set forth in
plaintiffs' August 6, 2003 response are sufficient.
Interrogatories 15-18. The answers to these interrogatories are
Interrogatory 19. This interrogatory seeks the identification of
witnesses. `The answer needs to be supplemented'with the address and
telephone numbers of the individuals identified. Plaintiffs are directed
to provide such supplementation no later than May 14, 2004.
Plaintiffs' Responses to Click's Third Set of
Interrogatories 1, 2, 5 and 6. These interrogatories were addressed at
the conference held in this matter on April 12, 2004. Plaintiffs were
directed at that time to serve supplemental responses by May 3, 2004.
Interrogatory 3. The answer to this interrogatory is sufficient.
Interrogatories 4, 6, 14, 16, 18 and 20. These interrogatories seek
identification of witnesses with knowledge concerning certain allegations
made by plaintiffs, and plaintiffs' responses are designed to obfuscate
the information sought rather than to provide it. For example,
Interrogatory 3 seeks identification of facts which plaintiffs contend constitute direct
evidence of any conspiracy alleged by plaintiffs in the Third
Consolidated Amended Complaint, and Interrogatory 4 seeks identification
of witnesses with knowledge and documents supportive of the facts
identified by plaintiffs in response to Interrogatory 3. Plaintiffs'
response to Interrogatory 4 states:
The witnesses with knowledge of the facts relevent
to the involvement and participation of defendant
Click in the price-fixing conspiracies that form the
basis of this action, and the documents supportive of
such facts, are identified in the Responses to
Interrogatories Nos. 1 and 2 above and in the
Responses To Interrogatories No. 1, 16 and 17 of
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Click Responses.
The witnesses with knowledge of the facts relevant
to, and documents supportive of plaintiffs'
allegations concerning, the involvement and
participation of each other defendant in the
price-fixing conspiracies that form the basis of this
action and the documents supportive of such facts, are
identified in the following discovery responses:
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Responses To Defendant
Elite's Contention Interrogatories (-dated September
4, 2003), specifically the supplemental responses to
interrogatories 1, 2, 10 and 11; Plaintiffs'
Supplemental Responses To Defendant Next's Contention
Interrogatories (dated September 4, 2003),
specifically the supplemental responses to
interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13,
14, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33 and
34; Plaintiffs' Supplemental Responses To Defendant
Wilhelmina's Contention Interrogatories (dated
September 12, 2003), specifically the supplemental
responses to interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 22;
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Responses To Defendant MMC's
Contention Interrogatories, specifically the supplemental responses to
interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22;
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Responses To Defendant Ford
Models, Inc.'s Contention Interrogatories (dated
September 12, 2003), specifically the supplemental
responses to interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,-17, 18, 19, 20, 22,
24, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 31; Plaintiffs' Supplemental
Responses To Defendant Q's Contention
Interrogatories, specifically the supplemental
responses to interrogatories 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 (dated September
Plaintiffs' response is deficient in numerous respects. First, plaintiffs
did not respond to Interrogatories 1 and 2, but rather promised responses
that were never forthcoming. Accordingly, the reference to Responses 1
and 2 are references to nonexistent responses. The second paragraph of
the Response is even more troubling, as it requires click to parse
through no less than One Hundred Thirteen (113) interrogatory answers in
order to derive the responsive information. It is difficult to read the
second paragraph of plaintiffs' response and not conclude that the
response was drafted to provide the minimum amount of information and to
generate the maximum amount of work. Plaintiffs' response does virtually
nothing to identify in a meaningful way the witnesses with knowledge of
the facts alleged.
Accordingly, I conclude that plaintiffs' answers to Interrogatories 4,
6, 14, 16, 18 and 20 are insufficient. Plaintiffs are directed to provide supplemental answers by May 14,
2004 identifying witnesses by name.
Interrogatories 11, 13, 15, 17 and 19. The answers to these
interrogatories are sufficient. Next's Contention Interrogatories
As noted above, plaintiffs were ordered to respond to Next's
Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 1, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17-36 no later than
July 25, 2003, which date was subsequently extended to July 31, 2003.
Next served responses to these interrogatories on August 6, 2003 and
supplemental responses on September 4, 2003.
In its motion, Next details the deficiencies in each of plaintiffs'
August 6, 2003 interrogatory responses, but cites deficiencies in only
two of plaintiffs' September 4, 2003 responses. Although I have carefully
reviewed Next's analysis of plaintiffs' August 6, 2003 responses and
agree that the majority of those responses are deficient, Next's apparent
inability to identify similar deficiencies in the September 4, 2003
responses (with two exceptions discussed below) leads me to conclude that
Next is satisfied with the September 4, 2003 responses.*fn3 Accord- ingly, with the exception of plaintiffs' responses to Interrogatories 35
and 36, plaintiffs have violated my July 9, 2003 Order by failing to
answer these interrogatories in a timely manner but not by failing to
provide information (i.e., by July 31, 2003).*fn4
The only two interrogatories in plaintiffs' September 4, 2003
supplemental responses that Next has identified as being deficient are
the responses to Interrogatories 35 and 36. Interrogatory 35 seeks
plaintiffs' contention as to what the market commission rate for
professional modeling agencies in New York would be in the absence of the
conspiracy alleged by plaintiffs and assuming the applicability of
General Business Law, Sections 170-90. Interrogatory 36 asks the same question but asks
plaintiffs to assume that General Business Law Sections 170-90 are not
applicable.*fn5 Although plaintiffs have answered Interrogatory 35, they
have not answered Interrogatory 36. Plaintiffs' response nowhere states
what plaintiffs believe the commission rate would be in the absence of
the alleged conspiracy and assuming the inapplicability of the General
As the foregoing analysis demonstrates, plaintiffs have unnecessarily
made the straight-forward task of responding to interrogatories a
difficult and grueling process. I am left with the firm conclusion that
plaintiffs' counsel determined they were going to provide discovery in
the manner that they saw fit, notwithstanding the requirements of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and not withstanding my prior Orders.
Such a tactic is, of course, unacceptable and richly deserves the
imposition of a sanction.
Counsel's conduct is particularly disturbing because their failure to
respond appropriately to interrogatory answers here is not an isolated event. I have had to sanction plaintiffs' counsel
on two prior occasions for discovery shortcomings. Despite these prior
sanctions, it appears that plaintiffs' counsel's still unwilling to
comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and my Orders
implementing those rules. See generally, McDonald v. Head Criminal Court
Supervisor Officer, 850 F.2d 121, 124 (2d Cir. 1988) (party against whom
discovery order is issued must either obey the order or obtain stay and
pursue appellate remedy).
Although I believe that a sanction is appropriate, I decline to impose
the ultimate sanction of the default judgment sought by Click and Next.
As noted by the Honorable David N. Kurd, then Magistrate Judge, now
United States District Judge, in Fritter v. Dafina, Inc., 176 F.R.D. 60,
63 (N.D.N.Y. 1997):
The Court may render a default judgment against a
party who has failed to fully comply with a discovery
order of the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2)(C). Such a
sanction is an extreme measure appropriate only in
extreme circumstances. See Bambu Sales Inc. v. Ozak
Trading Inc., 58 F.3d 849, 853 (2d Cir. 1995);
Woodstock Ventures LC v. Perry, 164 F.R.D. 321, 322
(N.D.N.Y. 1996) (citing Jones v. Niagara Frontier
Transp. Auth., 836 F.2d 731, 734 (2d Cir. 1987)).
Consequently, the Second Circuit limits default
judgments to circumstances "involving willfulness, bad
faith, or any fault on the part of the disobedient
party." Altschuler v. Samsonite Corp., 109 F.R.D. 353,
356 (E.D.N.Y. 1986) (citing Societe Internationale
Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commergiales,
S.A. v. Rogers, 357 U.S. 197, 212, 78 S.Ct. 1087,
1095-96, 2 L.Ed.2d 1255 (1958)); see Jones, 836 F.2d at 734. In addition,
though, the Second Circuit has held default judgment
appropriate where there has been a total dereliction
of professional responsibility, evincing circumstances
of gross negligence. Cine Forty-Second St. Theatre
Corp. v. Allied Artists Pictures Corp., 602 F.2d 1062,
1065-66 (2d Cir. 1979).
Discovery orders are supposed to be followed, and a
disobedient party who fails to follow such orders does
so at their own peril. Bambu, 58 F.3d at 853 (quoting
Update Art, Inc. v. Modiin Publishing, 843 F.2d 67, 73
(2d Cir. 1988)). Default judgments are available "`not
merely to penalize . . . but to deter those who might
be tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a
deterrent.'" Valentine v. Museum of Modern Art,
29 F.3d 47, 50 (2d Cir. 1994)(quoting National Hockey
League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639,
643, 96 S.Ct. 2778, 2781, 49 L.Ed.2d 747 (1976)).
Moreover, severe sanctions such as a default judgment
"prevent [s] undue delay in the disposition of
pending cases and avoid[s] congestion in the court's
calendars." Altschuler, 109 F.R.D. at 356 (citing
Penthouse Int'l v. Playboy Enterprises, Inc.,
663 F.2d 371, 386 (2d Cir. 1981)).
See also National Communications Ass'n, Inc. v. American Tel. & Tel.
Co., 92 Civ. 1735 (LAP), 1998 WL 118174 at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 1998);
Sullivan v. City of New York, 94 Civ. 1643 (FB), 1997 WL 642321 at *2
(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 3, 1997); Jeanette Coquette Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins.
Co., 93 Civ. 4417 (DAB), 1997 WL 527874 at *l-*2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 22,
1997); Edwards v. American Airlines, Inc., 95 Civ. 5356 (SAS), 1996 WL
432472 at *2-*3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 1996); Starbrite Waterproofing Co. v.
Aim Const. & Contracting Corp., 164 F.R.D. 378, 381-82 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). I conclude that the ultimate sanction of dismissal is not appropriate
here because the violations of my prior discovery orders are primarily
the result of counsel's conduct and not the result of misconduct on the
part of plaintiffs themselves. Although I am aware that there is a long
line of authority holding that clients are bound by their counsel's
conduct, I cannot ignore the fact that this is a certified class action
and that dismissal of all claims against Next and Click would c6nsti-tute
an adjudication of the claims of individuals who played no active part in
the selection of plaintiffs' counsel. Under these circumstances, I
believe that dismissal of the claims against Click and Next would be
unduly harsh. Nevertheless, plaintiffs' counsel's repeated failures to
comply with discovery orders merits some sanction.
The factors relevant to determining what sanction, if any, should be
imposed include the (1) degree of the offending party's fault, (2) the
adequacy of notice and (3) the efficacy of lesser sanctions. See Bambu
Sales, Inc. v. Ozak Trading, Inc., 58 F.3d 849, 852 (2d Cir. 1995). As
explained below, balancing these three factors supports the imposition of
monetary sanctions, but not the sanction of default judgment.
In this case, counsel's failure to comply with the discovery orders is
a matter of fault. The orders in issue were clear and unambiguous, and
counsel has offered no valid reason for non-compliance. To the extent counsel relies on the press of
other business, the excuse is unconvincing. No attorney can expect an
exemption from the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
simply because that attorney chooses to take on more work than he or she
Second, since Click and Next have proceeded by way of formal motion,
plaintiffs have had sufficient notice. See Thomas E. Hoar, Inc. v. Sara
Lee Corp., 882 F.2d 682, 688 (2d Cir. 1989); overruled on other grounds,
Cunningham v. Hamilton County, 527 U.S. 198 (1999); see also, United
States Freight Co. v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co., 716 F.2d 954, 955 (2d Cir.
Third, the sanction that I believe is appropriate a monetary
sanction assessed against plaintiffs' counsel will appropriately
punish the party most responsible for the discovery violations without
penalizing the plaintiffs themselves. Given the ineffectiveness of my two
prior sanction orders, which imposed fines of Two Hundred Fifty Dollars
($250.00) and Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), the sanction appropriate
here should be greater.*fn6 For all the foregoing reasons, I conclude that an appropriate sanction
in this case is a monetary sanction in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand
Dollars ($25,000.00) to be paid to the Clerk of the Court within ten (10)
days of the date of this Order. This sanction shall not be taxed to
plaintiffs at the conclusion of this action nor shall it be a taxable cost
in the event that plaintiffs prevail. In addition, pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4)(A) & (b)(2), defendants Click and Next are
entitled to recover their reasonable attorney's fees in connection with
their motion. Counsel are directed to confer and agree on a schedule
concerning submissions regarding Click's and Next's attorney's fees. In
addition, in the event that plaintiffs prevail in this matter, counsel
shall not be permitted to recover attorney's fees for the time spent
preparing responses to the interrogatories addressed herein or for the
time spent responding to Click's and Next's motions. Finally, plaintiffs
are directed to serve complete supplemental responses to the
interrogatories identified on Schedule A hereto no later than May 14,
2004, and plaintiffs shall not be permitted to offer at trial information
that was called for in Click's and Next's interrogatories, but has not been provided by plaintiffs in the responses they have served to
date or in the supplementation ordered herein.
SO ORDERED [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINED ADDRESSES.] [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINED ADDRESSES.] [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINED ADDRESSES.]
Click's First Set of Interrogatories
Click's Third Set of Interrogatories
Next's First Set of Interrogatories