KLEIMAN

v.

WRIGHT

v. CRAIG WRIGHT,

Defendant. ___________________________________/

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO LIMIT PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES (DD 443)

Currently before the Court is the parties’ Joint Discovery Memorandum (DE 443), which I construe as Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order.

On March 11, 2020, Plaintiff W&K Info Defense Research, LLC served thirteen interrogatories on Defendant. DE 443-8. Defendant objects to the interrogatories as excessive, claiming that Plaintiffs should be precluded from propounding any additional interrogatories because the Court should view the two Plaintiffs as a single party for purposes of Rule 33. Plaintiffs argue that since Rule 33 permits service of 25 interrogatories per party, they are entitled to serve a total of 50 interrogatories on Defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). I heard oral argument of this dispute on April¹, 2020.

Pursuant to Rule 26(c), the Court may issue a protective order upon a showing of “good cause” to limit the scope of discovery upon motion of a party. MSPA Claims¹, LLC v. Kingsway Amigo Ins. Co., No. 16-20212-CIV, 2018 WL 4963245, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2018) (J. Torres) (citing Patterson v. United States Postal Serv., 901 F. 2d 927, 929 (11th Cir. 1990) (“Matters pertaining to discovery are committed to the sound discretion of the district court.”).

Rule 33(a)(1) states in pertinent part, “Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party may serve on any other party no more than 25 written interrogatories, including all discrete parts.” Although the court orders authorized by this Rule generally expand the number of allowable interrogatories, the Rule also contemplates a court order reducing the number of allowable interrogatories. See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. (Rules to be “construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.”).

Notwithstanding Rule 33’s allowance of 25 interrogatories per party, in certain circumstances courts will use their discretion to impose a 25-interrogatory limit per side when parties to an action are only “nominally separate.” See 8A Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2168.1 (2d ed. 1994) (“As the Advisory Committee put it, ‘[t]he aim is not to prevent needed discovery, but to provide some judicial scrutiny before parties make potentially excessive use of this discovery device.’”).

Parties may be considered nominally separate when represented by a single attorney, when there is unity of action, or when there is a legal relationship between parties. Id.

Here, Plaintiff Kleiman is the corporate representative of Plaintiff W&K. Both Plaintiffs are represented by the same attorneys and their interests are aligned. Therefore, I find that they are only nominally separate parties and that there is good cause to limit the number of interrogatories Plaintiffs may serve on Defendant.¹ See United States ex rel. Woodruff v. Hawai'i Pac. Health, No. CV 05-00521 JMS-LEK, 2008 WL 11420075, at *3 (D. Haw. Feb. 29, 2008) (court found plaintiffs, who were two doctors in a qui tam action, were only nominally separate

Therefore, Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order (DE 443) is GRANTED and the thirteen interrogatories propounded by Plaintiff W&K at Exhibit H are stricken.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers this 3rd day of April 2020, at West Palm Beach in the Southern District of Florida.

BRUCEREINHART

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE