*1 This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Rules of this Court, and Standing Order 13-02.

Now before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve 25 Additional Interrogatories [Doc. 117]. Defendants have responded in opposition to this Motion [Doc. 118], and Plaintiff has replied [Doc. 119]. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff's Motion [Doc. 117].

I. ANALYSIS

Plaintiff moves the Court to serve twenty-five (25) additional interrogatories pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1). For grounds, Plaintiff states that the twenty-five (25) interrogatories permitted by the Rule were exhausted during jurisdictional discovery and now that Defendants' motions to dismiss have been denied, discovery should commence on the merits of this case. Plaintiff states that the additional interrogatories will be used for discovering the merits.

Defendants have objected [Doc. 118], stating that Plaintiff's Motion fails to provide a particularized explanation or reason as to the additional need for discovery. In addition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff did not present any proposed interrogatories with its Motion or discuss what subject matter the interrogatories intend to address, and that any potential reply brief is not the appropriate time to first provide such necessary information. Defendants state that Plaintiff seeks to serve a total of fifty (50) interrogatories, which is double the total number of interrogatories permitted by the Rules. Defendants assert that the proper forum for obtaining the extensive amount of information sought by Plaintiff is at a deposition due to the cost and convenience.

Plaintiff filed a Reply [Doc. 119], stating that under the circumstances, a particularized showing of the need for the interrogatories would not seem to be necessary because discovery had been limited to jurisdictional issues and there has been no discovery on the merits. Plaintiff states that its Motion is not based on any particularized need for certain interrogatories but on the principle that when a defendant files a preliminary motion to dismiss, and the motion is denied, the plaintiff should be able to start over with the full array of discovery allowed to all litigants. Plaintiff argues that the additional interrogatories will not be cumulative or duplicative because the previous interrogatories were aimed at personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff submits that interrogatories will be convenient because they will seek Defendants' own knowledge about the merits of the case. Plaintiff maintains that it has not had an ample opportunity to obtain the discovery necessary on the merits of this case given the personal jurisdiction issues. Plaintiff states that it does not know the exact content of the interrogatories, but the topics may include (1) the identity of witnesses, (2) identification of Plaintiff's products that are in Defendants' possession, (3) the location where the molds were made, and (4) whether there are any destroyed writings subject to the requests for production. Plaintiff states that interrogatories seeking information on other topics may be warranted once Defendants file their answers to the Complaint.[1]

*2 As the parties acknowledge, Rule 33 limits the number of interrogatories that can be served on a party. Specifically, Rule 33(a)(1) states, “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 subparts.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). The Rule further provides, “Leave to serve additional interrogatories may be granted to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). Rule 26(b)(1) requires that discovery be relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, and Rule 26(b)(2) allows the Court to limit the frequency and extent of discovery if it is (i) unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from another source that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). Finally, “courts have stated that the party seeking leave to serve additional interrogatories must make a ‘particularized showing’ as to why the additional discovery is necessary.” Aluma-Form, Inc. v. Geotek, LLC, No. 13-CV-2028-JPM/TMP, 2014 WL 12607091, at *2 (W.D. Tenn. Apr. 4, 2014) (other citations omitted).

The Court also notes that the comments in Rule 33 are helpful. The 1993 comment states, “Because Rule 26(a)(1)-(3) requires disclosure of much of the information previously obtained by this form of discovery, there should be less occasion to use it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1) advisory committee's note to 1993 amendment. In addition, the comment states that interrogatories can be costly, and therefore, the use of interrogatories must be consistent with Rule 26(b)(2), “particularly in multi-party cases where it has not been unusual for the same interrogatory to be propounded to a party by more than one of its adversaries.” Id. Finally, the comment provides, “The aim is not to prevent needed discovery, but to provide judicial scrutiny before parties make potentially excessive use of this discovery device. In many cases it will be appropriate for the court to permit a larger number of interrogatories in the scheduling order under Rule 16(b).” Id.

In the present matter, the Court does not find that Plaintiff has established a particularized need for serving an additional twenty-five (25) interrogatories. Here, Plaintiff primarily asserts that it “should be able to start over on the merits with the full array of discovery allowed to all litigants.” [Doc. 119 at 2]. Plaintiff, however, has not pointed the Court to any authority for the position that interrogatories served in relation to a preliminary issue do not count toward the twenty-five (25) limit set forth in Rule 33. Instead, the Court finds that the Rule is clear that a party is only entitled to serve on another party twenty-five (25) interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). The Court may grant additional interrogatories but only to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).

The Court finds Plaintiff's general assertion that it intends to serve additional interrogatories “on the merits” is not sufficient to meet its burden under the Rule. In Plaintiff's reply brief, Plaintiff lists several interrogatories that were served in the state court case prior to removal, stating that they demonstrate the topics that may be addressed in the interrogatories. Plaintiff states, however, “As for the exact content of the interrogatories, that is not yet known at this stage of the case and may not be known until somewhat later in the case.” [Doc. 119 at 6]. Given that Plaintiff does not know the exact content of the interrogatories, the Court cannot determine if the additional interrogatories are consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2).

As a final matter, the Court notes that Rule 33 allows the parties to stipulate to additional interrogatories. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1). After Plaintiff has drafted and served its interrogatories, the Court strongly encourages the parties to engage in good-faith discussions about what specific interrogatories are necessary in this case and to only seek Court intervention if they cannot resolve the matter after engaging in such good-faith discussions.

II. CONCLUSION

*3 Accordingly, for the reasons stated below, Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Serve 25 Additional Interrogatories [Doc. 117] is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ENTER:

The Court observes that Defendants have now responded to the Complaint. [Doc. 122].