MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
PAUL
L. FRIEDMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
One of
the outstanding issues raised by the District of Columbia in
its motion to compel discovery responses [Dkt. No. 99] and
maintained in an October 30 amended joint status report [Dkt.
No. 106] is the failure of the plaintiff, Kenneth Dickerson,
to provide a complete answer to Interrogatory No. 22.
Interrogatory No. 22 asks Mr. Dickerson to identify the
“type, category and amount” of the damages he
seeks, including “an explanation of the method by which
each amount was calculated” and “the basis for
claiming the type or category of damages and the specified
amount.” See District of Columbia's First
Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (“Mot. to
Compel”) [Dkt. No. 99] Exhibit A at 11. In his original
answer, Mr. Dickerson referred to his answers to
Interrogatory Nos. 15 and 16, and otherwise objected to
Interrogatory No. 22 for seeking information already within
the defendant's possession or control, and because the
information is more readily accessible to the defendant than
the plaintiff. See Mot. to Compel, Exhibit C at 19.
Mr.
Dickerson later supplemented his discovery response. His
supplemented answer to Interrogatory No. 22 consists of his
first answer in its entirety, with two new sentences.
Compare Mot. to Compel, Exhibit C at 19
with District of Columbia's Notice of Filing
(“Notice of Supp. Answers”) [Dkt. No. 112]
Exhibit A at 14. The first new sentence references a
“preliminary statement regarding [Mr. Dickerson's]
economic losses” that Mr. Dickerson had by then
provided to the District. Notice of Supp. Answers, Exhibit A
at 14. The second sentence says that Mr. Dickerson
“seeks compensatory damages consistent with Sands jury
instruction 13.1 and 2, to include emotional harm and
inconvenience, as well as harm to his reputation.”
Id.
Mr.
Dickerson did not file an opposition to the District's
motion to compel. Instead, during a status conference before
the Court on November 4, 2019, plaintiff's counsel said
that his supplemented answer to Interrogatory No. 22 rendered
the District's motion to compel moot. The District
maintained that it was still unclear as to what compensatory
damages Mr. Dickerson is seeking. Plaintiff's counsel
responded that it is not obligated to give any specifics
about quantifying an amount of compensatory damages. The
Court directed the parties to submit briefs citing cases in
support of their respective positions. See Nov. 6,
2019 Mem. Op. and Order [Dkt. No. 107] at 3.
Upon
consideration of the parties' supplemental briefs
regarding compensatory damages [Dkt. Nos. 109 and 110] the
Court finds that for the specific compensatory damages sought
- “emotional harm and inconvenience” and
“harm to . . . reputation” - Mr. Dickerson is not
required to provide an “amount” or “method
by which [that] amount was calculated.” See
Mot. to Compel, Exhibit A at 11. He is, however, required to
answer Interrogatory No. 22's request for the
“basis for claiming the type or category of
damages” he seeks - here, “emotional harm and
inconvenience, ” and “harm to his
reputation.” See Notice of Supp. Answers,
Exhibit A at 13-14.
I.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A.
Scope of Discovery
Under
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, discovery is broad, and
parties may “obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's
claim or defense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). To be
relevant for discovery purposes, “information need not
be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.” Cartagena v. Centerpoint Nine,
Inc., 303 F.R.D. 109, 112 (D.D.C. 2014) (citing
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1)).
B.
Interrogatories
Rule 33
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the
procedures for discovery through interrogatories. Walls
v. Paulson, 250 F.R.D. 48, 50 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33). Rule 33(b)(3) requires that “[e]ach
interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be
answered separately and fully in writing under oath.”
Id. “A party to whom an interrogatory is
propounded ‘must provide true, explicit, responsive,
complete, and candid answers.'” Walls v.
Paulson, 250 F.R.D. at 50 (quoting Equal Rights
Center v. Post Properties, Inc., 246 F.R.D. 29, 32
(D.D.C. 2007)). “[I]nterrogatories are not only an
information gathering tool, but also an opportunity to
require one's opponent to state its position on an issue
in controversy in writing and under oath.” Covad
Commc'ns Co. v. Revonet, Inc., 258 F.R.D. 17, 20
(D.D.C. 2009).
C.
Motion to Compel
Rule 37
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
“[o]n notice to other parties and all affected persons,
a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or
discovery.” Pederson v. Preston, 250 F.R.D.
61, 64 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1)).
“If a party fails to answer an interrogatory in
response to a Rule 33 discovery request, the Court may compel
a response.” Guantanamera Cigar Co. v. Corporacion
Habanos, S.A., 263 F.R.D. 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2009) (citing
Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iii)). “[A]n evasive or
incomplete . . . response must be treated as a failure to . .
. respond.” Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.
37(a)(4)). “The party moving to compel discovery has
the burden of proving that the opposing party's answers
were incomplete.” Equal Rights Center v. Post
Properties, Inc., 246 F.R.D. at 32 (citations omitted).
“Once that showing is made, however, the burden shifts
to the objecting party to explain why discovery should not be
permitted.” Cartagena v. Centerpoint Nine,
Inc., 303 F.R.D. at 112. “If a party objects to an
interrogatory, it must state its grounds for objection
‘with specificity.'” Equal Rights Center
v. Post Properties, Inc., 246 F.R.D. at 35 (quoting
Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(4)).
II.
DISCUSSION
A.
Objections to ...