*1 Defendant Bone Biologics Corporation (“BBC”) has moved to compel Plaintiffs Dr. Bessie Soo and Dr. Kang Ting to provide answers to various interrogatories. Defendants BBC and Stephen LaNeve have moved to compel Plaintiffs to produce certain documents. Docket Nos. 76, 78. For the following reasons, this Court grants BBC's motion to compel answers to interrogatories and grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion to compel production of documents.[1]

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs brought claims for breach of contract against BBC and for tortious interference with contracts against defendant LaNeve, BBC's CEO. Docket No. 22. BBC brought counterclaims against Soo and Ting for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.[2] Docket No. 37 at 33-38.

The Plaintiffs responded to Defendants’ document demands on May 9, 2022.[3] Docket No. 80 at 103. BBC served interrogatories on June 16, 2022, to which Plaintiffs responded on September 9, 2022. Docket No. 95 at 6. Judge Burroughs set May 17, 2023 as the deadline for the instant motions to compel. See Docket Nos. 72-75. She further set the deadlines for document discovery and fact depositions as September 14, 2023 and October 13, 2023, respectively. See Docket Nos. 72, 73.

Defendants filed their motions on May 17, 2023. Docket Nos. 76, 78. Plaintiffs filed an opposition on June 1, 2023. Docket No. 95. This Court heard oral argument on June 16, 2023.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“Discovery procedures set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure seek to further the interests of justice by minimizing surprise at trial and ensuring wide-ranging discovery of information.” Cartel Asset Mgmt. v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., No. 01-cv-01644-REB-CBS, 2010 WL 502721, at *9 (D. Colo. Feb. 8, 2010) (citing United States ex rel. Schwartz v. TRW, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 388, 392 (C.D. Cal. 2002)). To that end, Rule 26(b) permits “discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Factors that must be considered in weighing proportionality include “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id.

If a party fails to respond to requests for production of documents or interrogatories, the party seeking discovery may move to compel production of the requested information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3). “[T]he party seeking an order compelling discovery responses over the opponent's objection bears the initial burden of showing that the discovery requested is relevant.” Torres v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 3:18-10566-MGM, 2018 WL 4054904, at *2 (D. Mass. Aug. 24, 2018) (citation omitted). “Once a showing of relevance has been made, the objecting party bears the burden of showing that a discovery request is improper.” Id. (citation omitted).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Interrogatories[4]

*2 BBC moves to compel Plaintiffs to provide answers to the following interrogatories: 1, 9-13, 17, 19-23, and 25. Docket No. 77 at 17.

Interrogatory 1 requests the identity of all persons with knowledge of the allegations in the amended complaint and counterclaims. Docket No. 80 at 11. Plaintiffs argue that this request is an impermissible “blockbuster” interrogatory. Docket No. 95 at 11. “Blockbuster” interrogatories are defined as “all-encompassing interrogatories which require the plaintiff to provide a detailed narrative of its entire case, including the identity every witness and document that supports each described fact.” F.T.C. v. Ivy Cap., Inc., No. 2:11-CV-00283-JCM, 2012 WL 1883507, at *9 (D. Nev. May 22, 2012). This request simply seeks the identity of all persons with knowledge about the claims that Plaintiffs themselves brought. It does not request “all facts and legal bases” supporting “each and every allegation in the complaint.” In addition, Plaintiffs propounded a strikingly similar interrogatory to Defendants which they have answered. See Docket No. 88-6 at 13-14. Plaintiffs must answer the interrogatory.

Interrogatory 25 requests the identity of each person with whom a plaintiff communicated concerning the allegations in this case other than other parties or their attorneys. Docket No. 80 at 51. Here again, Plaintiffs propounded a strikingly similar interrogatory to Defendants which they have answered. See Docket No. 88-6 at 21-22. Plaintiffs must answer this one as well.

Interrogatories 9-13, 17, and 19-23 are contention interrogatories. Rule 33(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court may order that such interrogatories “need not be answered until designated discovery is complete, or until a pretrial conference or some other time.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). See also United States ex rel. Long v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., No. CV 16-12182-FDS, 2022 WL 4124018, at *4 (D. Mass. Sept. 9, 2022). In exercising such discretion, courts have looked to whether documentation supporting the answering parties’ responses is in that parties’ possession. Janssen Biotech, 2022 WL 4124018, at *4. Here, discovery is well underway and is scheduled to conclude in several months. In April 2023, the parties represented that they had “served extensive document requests upon each other (Plaintiff has served two RFPs; Defendants have served one RFP), and each has issued written objections and responses to the other's document requests. As a result, the parties have also conducted searches of their records and made substantial document productions, totaling almost 3,000 documents and over 100,000 pages.” Docket No. 72 at 2. More importantly, BBC's contention interrogatories seek information about Plaintiffs’ own allegations in the complaint, as well as their affirmative defenses.

Notice alone of the affirmative defenses at this stage is insufficient. Presumably, Plaintiffs had factual support for the allegations and defenses at the time they were made. Accordingly, it is not premature for Plaintiffs to respond to the contention interrogatories. Plaintiffs may, and indeed, are required to, supplement their answers with any additional information that comes to light as a result of the continuing discovery. Accordingly, Plaintiffs must respond to the following interrogatories: 1, 9-13, 17, 19-23, and 25.

B. Document Requests

*3 Defendants have moved to compel Plaintiffs to produce documents in response to the following requests: 1-11, 13-14, 17-18, 20, and 22-28. Docket No. 78 at 1. After reviewing Defendants’ requests for production (“RFP”) and Plaintiffs’ responses, and carefully considering the parties’ arguments, this Court finds as follows:

IV. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, this Court grants BBC's motion to compel answers to interrogatories and grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion to compel documents. Plaintiffs must provide responses in accordance with this order by July 7, 2023.