## Facts

- Bryan Murphy sued Setzer’s World of Camping, Inc. in federal court, and the dispute concerned written discovery served on Murphy during discovery.
- Setzer’s served Murphy a set of 11 interrogatories.
- Murphy responded on time but objected to every interrogatory.
- Murphy objected to requests for basic personal and background information on the ground that the interrogatories were not proportional to the needs of the case.
- Murphy also made generalized burden and relevance objections without explaining what made any particular interrogatory burdensome or irrelevant.
- For an interrogatory seeking identification of witnesses, Murphy objected that Setzer’s already had access to the information (including contact information for employees at certain companies), even though Setzer’s did not know which specific employees Murphy considered witnesses.
- Murphy asserted attorney–client privilege and/or work-product protection in response to some interrogatories but did not provide a privilege log.
- After Setzer’s requested additional information, Murphy sent roughly 60 emails with assorted records and attachments, without identifying which materials answered which interrogatories.
- The parties could not resolve the disagreement, and Setzer’s moved to compel complete interrogatory responses.

## Issues

1. Whether a party may object to interrogatories using blanket proportionality, burden, or relevance objections without request-specific support.
2. Whether a responding party may refuse to identify witnesses on the theory that the information is equally available to the requesting party.
3. Whether a party may withhold information as privileged without providing the information required by Rule 26(b)(5), including a privilege log or its equivalent.
4. Whether sending a large volume of emails and records without linking them to particular interrogatories satisfies the responding party’s obligations under the Federal Rules.

## Decision

- The court granted Setzer’s motion to compel.
- The court rejected Murphy’s generalized objections as improper because they were not supported with specific, interrogatory-by-interrogatory explanations.
- The court required Murphy to provide complete answers to the interrogatories, including basic identifying and background information, because the requests were within the scope of discovery and Murphy had not shown otherwise.
- The court rejected Murphy’s refusal to identify witnesses based on “equal access,” because Setzer’s was entitled to know which individuals Murphy identified as potential witnesses.
- The court found Murphy’s privilege assertions insufficient without the information required to evaluate the claims of privilege (such as a privilege log).
- The court determined that Murphy’s mass transmission of emails and attachments did not cure the deficiencies because it did not indicate which documents responded to which interrogatories.
- The court ordered Murphy to serve full and complete supplemental responses within a short deadline (ten days).

## Legal Principles

- Discovery objections must be stated with specificity; boilerplate objections (including proportionality, burden, and relevance objections) that are not tied to the particular request and supported by concrete explanation are inadequate.
- Basic personal, employment, and other background information commonly falls within the broad scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1), absent a specific showing that the request is improper.
- A party generally may not refuse to identify witnesses simply because the requesting party may also be able to find some of the same names through its own files; interrogatories may require the responding party to identify the individuals it contends have relevant knowledge.
- When a party withholds information based on attorney–client privilege or work-product protection, Rule 26(b)(5) requires enough information to permit evaluation of the claim; a privilege log is a common means to provide that information.
- When responding to interrogatories by pointing to records, the responding party must identify the records in a usable way so the requesting party can locate the responsive information without guesswork; an unindexed, unconnected production is not an adequate response.
- Under Rule 37(a), courts may compel supplemental responses when a party’s objections and responses prevent the requesting party from obtaining discoverable information.

## Conclusion

Murphy v. Setzer’s World of Camping, Inc. granted a motion to compel where the plaintiff objected to every interrogatory with unsupported proportionality, burden, and relevance objections, resisted identifying witnesses based on an “equal access” theory, asserted privilege without supplying the required information to assess the claim, and attempted to cure deficiencies by sending many emails and records without tying them to specific interrogatories; the court ordered full, properly supported supplemental answers within ten days.


Murphy v. Setzer's World of Camping, Inc., 2021 WL 2042732 (2021)