Brown v. Kansas City Police Department

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

WESTERN DIVISION

GLEANICE BROWN, )

LATONDRA MOORE, and )

TAMARA SOLOMON, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) Case No. 4:20-CV-00920-DGK

v. )

)

KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI BOARD )

OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS, )

BY AND THROUGH ITS MEMBERS, )

DON WAGNER, MARK TOLBERT, )

CATHY DEAN, NATHAN GARRETT )

AND QUINTON LUCAS, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY DISPUTES

Plaintiffs are three female African-Americans who were formerly detectives in the Crimes

Against Children Unit (“CAC”) of the Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department (“KCPD”).

They allege their immediate supervisors in the unit discriminated against them on the basis of their

race, age, and gender, and the KCPD discriminated against them in how it punished them for

alleged procedure and policy violations in the CAC. They are suing the Kansas City, Missouri,

Board of Police Commissioners by and through its various members (collectively “Defendant

BOPC” or “Defendant”), under various federal civil rights laws for discrimination, retaliation, and

harassment based on race, age, and gender.

Now before the Court are numerous long-running discovery disputes the parties have been

unable to resolve without the Court’s intervention. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ requests

for relief are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Additionally, as explained in the conclusion section of this order, the Court directs the

parties to carefully comply with the letter and the spirit of the rules of discovery. Failure to do so

may result in sanctions under Rule 11, Rule 26(g), Rule 37, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, or the Court’s

inherent authority.

Background

These disputes initially covered an enormous number of topics, including Plaintiffs’

collective request to have all of Defendant’s objections to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories waived

because Defendant inadvertently late-served its responses,1 forty-six of Plaintiff Solomon’s fifty-

seven requests for production of documents (“RFP”), nineteen of Solomon’s twenty-one initial

interrogatories, and a comparable number of interrogatories and RFPs involving the other two

Plaintiffs. After repeated re-briefing of the issues and prodding by the Court to resolve these

issues without its intervention, the parties managed to narrow down the issues somewhat for the

Court to consider in a discovery dispute teleconference with the parties.

In its last order, after once again encouraging the parties to resolve at least some of these

issues on their own, the Court issued specific instructions on how any remaining issues should be

briefed. The Court instructed any party wishing to raise a remaining discovery issuing to file a

memorandum that

identifies by separately numbered paragraph each outstanding

interrogatory and/or request for production by number that remains

in dispute; (2) explains in detail with pinpoint citation to relevant

legal authority (preferably 8th Circuit caselaw) why the opposing

party’s response to that particular interrogatory or request for

1 The late responses were due to an administrative oversight; once the mistake was brought to Defense counsels’

attention, the interrogatory responses were served that same day. Finding good cause for the delay, the Court excused

the violation.

2

production is insufficient; and (3) states the specific relief sought.

The disputed request or response should be attached to the memo as

an exhibit.

Order Re Disc. Disputes and Scheduling Order at 4, ECF No. 79. These directions were identical

to those given in the Court’s previous order. ECF No. 63.

Plaintiffs’ counsel subsequently filed three memorandum, one for each Plaintiff. ECF

Nos. 80 (Plaintiff Brown), 81 (Plaintiff Moore), and 82 (Plaintiff Solomon). Portions of all three

memos, however, do not comply with the Court’s very specific instructions on how to identify and

brief these issues.

Defendant filed a single consolidated memorandum in response, which largely complied

with the Court’s instructions. ECF No. 83.

After reviewing the parties’ filings at length, the Court determined a teleconference with

the parties would serve no useful purpose and decided to rule on the existing record, as the Court

previously advised the parties it might do.

Analysis

I. Any relief sought by Plaintiffs with respect to Defendant’s RFP responses is denied.

As a threshold matter, to the extent Plaintiffs are seeking any relief related to their RFPs,

it is denied. The Court cannot tell if Plaintiffs are requesting the Court order Defendant to provide

additional documents in response to Plaintiffs’ RFPs. Each of Plaintiffs’ discovery dispute

memos complain that “Defendant BOPC still has not provided adequate responses to . . . the

requests for production of documents,” and “the documents requested by the plaintiffs in the RFPs

are needed in order to investigate her discrimination and retaliation claims.” Brown Mem. at 1,

Moore Mem. at 1, Solomon Mem. at 1 (each memo is worded identically). Additionally,

3

throughout Plaintiffs’ discussion of Defendant’s interrogatory responses, Plaintiffs complain about

Defendant’s responses to their requests for production, asserting “Defendant failed to show

specifically how each request for production is not relevant . . .” See, e.g., Moore’s Mem. at 3-

10 (repeating the quoted phrase 19 times). Plaintiffs, however, have not identified a single RFP

response as still being in dispute. Thus, the Court has no idea whether any RFPs are still in

dispute, or if the complaints in Plaintiffs’ briefs about Defendant’s RFP answers are vestigial

remnants from earlier briefs.

In any event, the Court holds that if there are any outstanding disputes concerning

Plaintiffs’ RFPs, Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Court’s order to specifically identify any

RFP that is in dispute, and so any request for relief concerning Defendant’s response to an RFP is

denied.

II. The relief sought with respect to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories is granted in part.

The Court begins its analysis with a few observations.

A. Defendant’s answers use impermissible boilerplate objections extensively.

At the outset, the Court notes Defendant has used impermissible “boilerplate” objections

extensively. By “boilerplate objection,” the Court means an objection that “merely states the legal

grounds for the objection without (1) specifying how the discovery request is deficient and (2)

specifying how the objecting party would be harmed if it were forced to respond to the request.”

Smash Technology, LLC v. Smash Solutions, LLC, 335 F.R.D. 438, 441 (D. Utah 2020). For

example, an objection that asserts a request is “overly broad” or “irrelevant” without explaining

why is a boilerplate objection. Id. Such objections “are taglines, completely devoid of any

4

individualized factual analysis,” which are often “used repetitively in response to multiple

discovery requests.” Id.

The most obvious problem with these objections is that they violate the requirement in the

Rules of Civil Procedure governing discovery “that ‘the grounds for objecting’ be ‘stated with

specificity’ as to interrogatories and that objections to document requests be ‘state[d] with

specificity . . . including the reasons.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (governing

interrogatory objections) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(B) (governing requests for production of

documents)). The Court acknowledges that the use of “boilerplate” objections is painfully

widespread in litigation, particularly “scorched earth” litigation where the strategy is to drive-up

the opposing party’s litigation costs. But the fact that they are used extensively in practice does

not make the practice acceptable. The caselaw is clear that

merely asserting boilerplate objections that the discovery sought is

vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, etc. . . . without

specifying how each interrogatory or request for production is

deficient and without articulating the particular harm that would

accrue if the responding party were required to respond to the

proponent’s discovery requests simply is not enough.

Liguria Foods, Inc. v. Griffith Laboratories, Inc., 320 F.R.D. 168, 185 (N.D. Iowa 2017).

In this case, Defendant’s initial answers employ “boilerplate” objections extensively. For

example, Defendant’s answer to Plaintiff Moore’s opening interrogatories uses the exact phrase

“overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to any party’s claim or defense” sixteen times in the

span of answering twenty-one interrogatories, and it rarely adds any explanation why the

information sought is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not relevant to a claim or defense.

5

Granted, several of Plaintiffs’ interrogatories are overbroad and unduly burdensome on their face.2

Even so, the rules of discovery require Defendant to state the grounds for its objections with

specificity.

B. Plaintiffs have largely failed to comply with the Court’s briefing instructions.

On the other hand, in their memos Plaintiffs have largely failed to comply with the Court’s

directive to “explain[] in detail with pinpoint citation to relevant legal authority (preferably 8th

Circuit caselaw) why the opposing party’s response to that particular interrogatory or request for

production is insufficient.” Order at 4. Plaintiffs have largely cut-and-pasted boilerplate

arguments into their memos which are unhelpful in deciding the specific discovery disputes before

the Court. Plaintiffs’ oft-repeated mantra is that Defendant’s responses are “insufficient pursuant

to the standard of FRCP 33(b)(4), 33(d)(1),” but Plaintiffs almost always fail to explain in detail

why Defendant’s response is insufficient.

Further, Plaintiffs’ memos barely cite any legal authority, much less Eighth Circuit

caselaw. Granted, Plaintiffs’ memos cite Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), 33(b)(4), and

33(d)(1), which are the applicable rules, but these citations are not helpful since the disputes here

do not concern what the rules of the discovery are so much as the application of these rules to

Defendant’s answers to Plaintiffs’ interrogatories. That is why the Court directed the parties to

provide pinpoint citation to other cases, preferably Eighth Circuit cases. Plaintiffs responded by

2 For example, Brown Interrogatory No. 15 directs Defendant to “identify each person who has been employed by

[the Kansas City Police Department from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2021] by stating their name, date of birth,

race, gender, job title, department name, unit name, wage information, hire date, date employed, termination date and

termination reason.” Similarly, Moore Interrogatory No. 5 directs Defendant to “list . . . all persons from whom

anyone . . . has obtained statements or factual memoranda (whether handwritten, oral, typewritten, court reporter

recorded or otherwise) pertaining to the facts related in any way to the claim or claims upon which this suit is based.

With respect to each, please furnish a brief description of the statements or memoranda sufficient to identify it,

including type, date and to whom given.”

6

citing three cases—a Supreme Court decision from 1978, a Tenth Circuit decision from 1995, and

a Northern District of Iowa decision from 2000—all of which stand for fairly generic propositions

and not particularly helpful to resolving the issues here.

As a consequence, rather than conduct Plaintiffs’ legal research for them, where citation to

authority was needed to rebut Defendant’s arguments but not provided, the Court gave Plaintiffs’

argument on that point little, if any, weight.

C. Rulings on specific interrogatories.

In ruling on the specific interrogatories below, the Court has adopted the following format.

First, the Court has provided the entire interrogatory (or interrogatories) first,3 followed by

Defendant’s entire answer in bold, then a summary of the most arguments made in each parties’

discovery dispute memos, and finally the Court’s ruling.

1. Moore, Brown, Solomon interrogatory No. 1.

1. Identify yourself and each person who assisted you in answering these interrogatories

by stating:

a. The person’s name, residential address, business address, and telephone

number; and

b. The corresponding number of each interrogatory each person assisted you in

answering.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory calls for information protected by the

attorney work product doctrine. Further objecting, the interrogatory is overbroad,

unduly burdensome, not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks

information not proportional to the needs of the case. This information is neither

discoverable nor otherwise subject to disclosure under the Federal Rules of Civil

3 Many of the disputed interrogatories are identically worded but submitted separately for each of the three Plaintiffs,

so one ruling resolves all three interrogatories.

7

Procedure. The interrogatory is further vague and ambiguous with its use of the

phrases “Identify yourself” and “assisted you in answering.”

Without waiving these objections, and subject thereto, Retired Major Diane

Mozzicato is verifying the answers to these interrogatories.

Plaintiffs’ memos argue Defendant’s answer is insufficient because the attorney-client

work product doctrine “is intended only to guard against divulging the attorney’s strategies and

legal impressions.” Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dabney, 73 F.3d 262, 266 (10th Cir. 1995).

Defendant responds:

The BOPC objected as overly broad, not relevant, not proportional,

vague, and ambiguous, and invasive of personal privacy and

attorney work product. As the BOPC has told plaintiffs, the people

assisting in responding to these interrogatories are part of in-house

legal staff. Identifying these folks (let alone providing private

contact information) serves no discoverable purpose. If plaintiffs

want to know who has relevant information, then the Rule 26

disclosures and documents produced are the best indicators of that.

As the BOPC has assured plaintiffs, the BOPC is not hiding any

relevant witness behind its objection to Interrogatory No. 1.

Mem. Ex. 3 at 1, ECF No. 83-3.

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s objection is overruled. Who prepared Defendant’s

interrogatory responses is discoverable information because the response will identify individuals

who have knowledge of the facts in this case. Granted, if these individuals are attorneys or legal

staff, what they know about these responses may be protected by the attorney work-product

doctrine. But Defendant has not cited any authority suggesting that the work-product doctrine

shields from discovery the mere names of attorneys or staff who may have helped answer.

Defendant’s claim that the interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to

any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to the needs of the case, is

8

impermissible boilerplate. Consequently, objections on these grounds are waived. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 33(b)(4) (“The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity. Any

ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the

failure.”). Also, in the context of this interrogatory, the phrases “identify yourself” and “assisted

you in answering” are not vague and ambiguous.

That said, because defense counsel are officers of the court, the Court takes them at their

word that everyone who helped prepare these interrogatory responses other than Diane Mozzicato

are in-house legal staff. And the Court sees no justification for Plaintiffs to contact such legal

staff at home or by phone, or to otherwise possess their personal contact information, so there is

no reason Defendant needs to provide a residential address or telephone number for these

individuals.4

Accordingly, Defendant shall answer this interrogatory in full, with the exception of

providing the residential address or telephone number for these individuals. If the legal staff who

assisted in the preparation of these interrogatories received any information from anyone who is

not legal staff (e.g., a file clerk in the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department) such individual(s)

must also be identified.

2. Moore, Brown, Solomon interrogatory No. 2.

2. Describe all plaintiff’s positions and job duties associated with plaintiff’s position at

the Kansas City Police Department.

ANSWER: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), the BOPC refers

plaintiff to documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for

4 Of course, if Plaintiffs have some reason to believe one or more of the individuals who assisted in the preparation

of the responses are not bona fide members of Defendant’s legal staff—if, for example, Defendant has designated

ordinary employees of the Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department’s records department as legal staff—the Court

may revisit this ruling.

9

Production of Documents. In particular, see BOPC000965-1531 and 3137-13853,

including 4481-4486, 4500, 4908-4952, 5797-5800, 6518-6235, 6733-6919, as well as

13862-14375, and 14464-14587.

Plaintiffs argue that a litigant may use a document production to respond to interrogatories

only if the answer can be clearly derived from the production. They argue the answer cannot be

clearly derived from Defendant’s document production because Defendant has cited to over 10,000

Bates-numbered pages to answer an interrogatory that could be answered in a paragraph, but they

do not cite any analogous caselaw. Plaintiffs request the Court instruct Defendant to answer the

interrogatory in full and specifically identify corresponding produced documents.

In its memo, Defendant replies that its response referring Plaintiffs to the produced

documents was appropriate because otherwise it would have to spend the time and resources to

describe every job position ever held by Plaintiffs throughout their employment history. It argues

it is no more burdensome for Plaintiffs to review these personnel records for these answers than it

is for Defendant, especially when Plaintiffs actually worked these jobs, so they know what

positions they have held and their associated job duties. To the extent they might not, the

personnel records contained in the document production explain Plaintiffs’ employment details.

Defendant quotes Handi-Craft Co. v. Action Trading, S.A., for support. No. 4:02-cv-1731-LMB,

2004 WL 6043510, at *5 (E.D. Mo. May 21, 2004) (“The purpose behind [Rule 33(d)] is to place

the burden of research on the interrogating party and relieves an answering party from preparing a

direct response to an interrogatory.”). It contends Plaintiffs know what positions they have held

and their associated job duties, and to the extent they do not, the personnel records contained in

the document production explain Plaintiffs’ employment details.

The Court’s ruling: Rule 33(d) states:

10

If the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining .

. . a party’s business records . . . and if the burden of deriving or

ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either

party, the responding party may answer by: (1) specifying the

records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the

interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the

responding party could.

Unfortunately, neither party has described what is in the 10,000 plus pages of Bates-stamped

documents Defendant identified as being responsive, so the Court has no idea whether they are

responsive or if Defendant specified these records in sufficient detail.

Defendant has represented to the Court that these documents are responsive. While that

seems difficult to believe—particularly given that Defendant repeatedly cites these same

documents as responsive to a wide range of Plaintiffs’ interrogatories—Plaintiffs bear the burden

of demonstrating they are entitled to the relief sought, and they have not made any showing that

any of the cited documents are unresponsive, for example, by citing specific pages which are non-

responsive.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ requests are denied with respect to these interrogatories.

3. Brown Interrogatory No. 7 (also Moore No. 4, Solomon No. 7).

7. Please identify in detail all persons’ having knowledge of the Crimes against Children

Unit Investigation stating the person’s name, residential address, telephone number,

job title, and description of involvement; and identify any reprimands or punishment

issued by you for this incident.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is vague and ambiguous, overbroad, unduly

burdensome, not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not

proportional to the needs of the case in requesting information regarding “all

persons’ having knowledge”. The information is also invasive of personal privacy

without any showing of need. Subject to and without waiving these objections, the

BOPC refers plaintiff to its Rule 26 disclosures. Further answering, the BOPC

refers plaintiff to documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for

11

Production of Documents. In particular, see BOPC000001-127, 94, 3137-13853,

4176-4177, and 14627-14652.

Plaintiffs contend Defendant’s reference to the above-numbered documents “is insufficient

pursuant to the standard of FRCP 33(b)4, 33(d)(1).” Plaintiffs argue this information is needed

to identify witnesses and to investigate whether discrimination occurred through plaintiff’s

comparators. With respect to Defendant’s objections, Plaintiffs contends Defendant failed to

show specifically how each request for production is not relevant or how each question is overly

broad, burdensome, and not relevant; that the customary temporal scope in federal cases is 10

years; and that the citation to over 10,000 pages of documents is insufficiently specific for

Plaintiffs to locate and identify any adequate response as easily as Defendant could. Plaintiffs

fail to cite any authority supporting their positions.

Defendant replies that providing the private contact information of “all persons” serves no

discoverable purpose. If Plaintiffs want to know who has relevant information, then the Rule 26

disclosures and documents produced regarding the CAC investigation are the best indicators of

that, which Plaintiffs already have. Defendant also states it does not understand the reference to

a 10-year scope. Finally, Defendant argues that in addition to having the Rule 26 disclosures,

Plaintiffs know the relevant players as well as Defendant and provide no explanation why it is

easier for Defendant to review the documents to identify “all persons having knowledge” than

Plaintiffs.

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s bare assertion that the interrogatory is overbroad,

unduly burdensome, not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not

proportional to the needs of the case, is impermissible boilerplate. Consequently, objections on

these grounds are waived. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4).

12

With respect to Defendant’s referring Plaintiffs to 10,000 pages of records for any answers,

again, because neither party has described what is in these documents, the Court has no idea how

responsive they are. Plaintiffs’ boilerplate responses (Defendant’s referring Plaintiffs to the

number documents “is insufficient pursuant to the standard of FRCP 33(b)4, 33(d)(1) . . .”) with

no citation to legal authority is as unhelpful. Defendant has indicated that the documents are

responsive. Since Plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating they are entitled to the relief sought,

and they have not made any showing that Defendant has cited unresponsive documents.

Plaintiffs’ requests are denied with respect to these interrogatories.

4. Brown Interrogatory No. 8 (also Moore No. 5, Solomon No. 8)

8. Please list the names, addresses and telephone numbers of all persons from whom

anyone, according to your best information and belief, has obtained statements or

factual memoranda (whether handwritten, oral, typewritten, court reporter recorded or

otherwise) pertaining to the facts related in any way to the claim or claims upon which

this suit is based. With respect to each, please furnish a brief description of the

statements or memoranda sufficient to identify it, including type, date and to whom

given.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome,

not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not

proportional to the needs of the case in its request for personal information about

anyone who has gathered factual information “related in any way” to the claims

in this case. The information is also invasive of personal privacy without any

showing of need. Subject to and without waiving these objections, pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), the BOPC refers plaintiff to documents

produced in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents.

In particular, see the CAC investigation materials at BOPC003137-13853,

including the table of contents at 13794-13853.

Plaintiffs’ arguments here are almost identical to those made concerning the preceding

interrogatory, as is Defendant’s reply.

13

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s objections are boilerplate and so waived. Because

neither party has described what is in the 10,000 pages of documents, the Court has no idea whether

the cited pages are responsive. Defendant has indicated that the documents are responsive.

Since Plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating they are entitled to the relief sought, and they

have not made any showing that Defendant has cited unresponsive documents, nor cited any

analogous caselaw supporting their position, Plaintiffs’ requests are denied with respect to these

interrogatories.

5. Brown Interrogatory No. 9 (also Moore No. 6 and Solomon No. 10)

9. Please state all of the reasons for which you suspended the plaintiff’s employment

at Kansas City Police Department.

ANSWER: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), the BOPC refers

plaintiff to documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for

Production of Documents. In particular, see BOPC000001-964 and 3137-13853,

including 4186.

Plaintiffs argue this response is insufficient because the answer cannot be clearly derived

from the cited documents.

Defendant’s response mirrors that given to the preceding question.

The Court’s ruling: Because neither party has described what is in the over 11,000 pages

of Bates-stamped documents cited by Defendant, the Court has no idea whether the cited pages

are responsive. Defendant has indicated that they are responsive. Since Plaintiffs bear the

burden of demonstrating they are entitled to the relief sought, and they have not made any showing

that Defendant has cited unresponsive documents, nor have they cited any analogous caselaw

supporting their position, Plaintiffs’ request for relief is denied.

14

6. Brown Interrogatory No. 10 (also Solomon No. 11)

10. Please state all of the reasons for which you recommended the suspension and

termination of the plaintiff’s employment at Kansas City Police Department.

ANSWER: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), the BOPC refers

plaintiff to documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for

Production of Documents. In particular, see BOPC000001-127, 965-1531, and 3137-

13853, including 46-62, 66-94, 4186, 5395-5429, 5646-5648, 5678-5681, 5783-5788,

5801-5814, 6084-6109, and 9314-10086.

Plaintiffs argue this response is insufficient because the answer cannot be clearly derived

from the cited documents.

Defendant argues it referred Plaintiffs to its EEOC position statement related materials,

personnel records, and investigation materials, all of which address Brown’s suspension and

termination, as well as Solomon’s suspension related to the CAC investigation and the termination

of her employment for a domestic violence incident. Defendant also cites Handi-Craft Co. in

support.

The Court’s ruling: From Defendant’s description of the cited documents, it appears

they are responsive. Since Plaintiffs bear the burden of demonstrating they are entitled to the

relief sought, and they have not made any showing that Defendant has cited unresponsive

documents, nor cited any analogous caselaw supporting their position, Plaintiffs’ request is denied

with respect to these interrogatories.

7. Brown Interrogatory No. 11 (also Moore No. 9 and Solomon No. 12)

11. Please identify each complaint plaintiff submitted to you by stating the date of the

report, who investigated the report, and the results of the investigation.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory lacks specificity or any temporal scope.

It is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and

15

seeks information not proportional to the needs of the case in seeking information

about “each complaint” with no limit or scope as to time or subject of the complaint.

Subject to and without waiving these objections, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 33(d), the BOPC refers plaintiff to documents produced in response to

Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents. In particular, see statements

made by Plaintiff in BOPC 00001-127 and 3137-13853, including 6-8, 103-105, 5572-

5645, 5675-5677, and 9314-10086.

Plaintiffs argue this response is insufficient because the answer cannot be clearly derived

from the cited documents.

In addition to its standard arguments about scope, relevance, and proportionality,

Defendant argues Plaintiffs know their complaints and the results of those complaints; that the

cited documents refer to their complaints of discrimination in their EEOC charges and their

complaints about the CAC investigation; and that Plaintiffs have cited no authority requiring the

BOPC to distill those records into a paragraph for Plaintiffs’ convenience.

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s objections are boilerplate and so waived. As for

Defendant’s answering by referring Plaintiffs to records, from the limited description of the cited

documents provided by Defendant, it appears they are responsive. Since Plaintiffs bear the

burden of demonstrating they are entitled to the relief sought, and they have not made any showing

that Defendant has cited unresponsive documents, nor cited any analogous caselaw supporting

their position, Plaintiffs’ request for relief is denied.

8. Brown Interrogatory No. 12 (also Moore No. 7 and Solomon No. 14)

12. Please state all of the reasons why plaintiff was denied a wage increase, overtime pay,

wages during a suspension, and/or a bonus.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory lacks specificity or any temporal scope. It

is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and

seeks information not proportional to the needs of the case.

16

Plaintiffs argues Defendant’s response is unresponsive and insufficient because they made

a claim for wage discrimination, which makes such information discoverable. Moreover,

Defendant failed to show specifically how each request for production is not relevant or how each

question is overly broad, burdensome, and not relevant to any party. Plaintiffs also assert, without

citation to authority, that “the customary temporal scope in federal cases is 10 years.”

In its brief, Defendant argues that the request is too broad (asking about any wage increase,

suspension pay, bonus, or overtime throughout Plaintiffs’ employment) and not proportional to the

case. More importantly, for the first time, it provides some specific examples of these problems

related to this request. For example, it argues that seeking “all of the reasons” for any pay issue

with no limit or scope as to time or subject, is too broad because overtime decisions sometimes

must be made every day, sometimes multiple times a day, with limited documentation, thus asking

about every decision denying overtime over the entire course of Plaintiffs’ careers potentially

involves thousands of decisions. Additionally, Defendant notes Plaintiffs are masters of their

Complaint, and thee Complaint does not allege any specific denial of compensation, nor have

Plaintiffs ever alleged being paid less or being denied pay.

The Court’s ruling: Although Defendant makes several arguments in its discovery

dispute memo explaining why the request is arguably too broad and not proportional, these

arguments should have been made in its interrogatory answer explaining its objection. See

Liguria Foods, 320 F.R.D. at 185 (“[M]erely asserting boilerplate objections that the discovery

sought is vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly burdensome, etc. . . . without specifying how each

interrogatory or request for production is deficient and without articulating the particular harm that

would accrue if the responding party were required to respond to the proponent’s discovery

17

requests simply is not enough.”). The Court will not entertain these arguments now. See Mills

v. E. Gulf Coal Preparation Co., LLC, 259 F.R.D. 118, 132 (S.D.W. Va. 2009) (“Failure to state

objections specifically in conformity with the Rules will be regarded as a waiver of those

objections.”).

Defendant shall answer these interrogatories by providing a specific written answer. It

may also cite specific corresponding produced documents, but it may not cite documents in lieu

of providing a specific written answer.

9. Brown Interrogatory No. 13 (also Moore No. 8 and Solomon No. 15)

13. Please state each policy and procedure violation plaintiff has committed from January

1, 2012 to January 1, 2019.

ANSWER: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), the BOPC refers

plaintiff to documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for

Production of Documents. In particular, see Plaintiff’s personnel records at

BOPC000965-1531. See also BOPC000001-127 and 3137-13853, including 46-62, 66-

94, 4186, 5395-5429, 5646-5648, 5678-5681, 5783-5788, 5801-5814, 6084-6109, and

9314-10086.

Plaintiffs argue this response is insufficient because the answer cannot be clearly derived

from the cited documents.

Defendant responds that it referred Plaintiffs to their personnel records and investigation

materials, and Plaintiffs’ argument is not supported by citation to caselaw.

The Court’s ruling: From the limited description of the cited documents provided by

Defendant, it appears the cited documents are responsive, and Plaintiffs have not cited any caselaw

supporting their position. These portions of Plaintiffs’ motions are denied.

10. Brown Interrogatory No. 14

18

14. Regarding the Crimes Against Children Unit from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2021,

please state per year the total caseload, the total cases closed, the total cases sent to the

prosecutor, the total cases that had deficiencies, the total cases that resulted in a

prosecution and the total cases that were closed without a charge filed.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. The interrogatory lacks specificity and has too large a

temporal scope. It is further vague and ambiguous in its use of the term

“deficiencies.”

Plaintiff Brown argues Defendant’s answers failed to explain specifically how each

question in the interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and not relevant. Plaintiff also

contends, without citation, that “[t]he customary temporal scope in federal cases is 10 years.

Finally, Plaintiff states the term “deficiencies” is not vague since it was the term Defendant used

in its investigation against Plaintiff.

Defendant responds that this interrogatory fails to focus on matters at issue in this case; is

overbroad, not relevant, and not proportional because the interrogatory lacks specificity and has

too large a temporal scope; and is vague and ambiguous in its use of the term “deficiencies.” It

also notes that Plaintiffs’ contention that they had a higher workload than others CAC coworkers

and that this is why they were disciplined more severely, this contention is addressed in the CAC

investigation materials. Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden to show a need for such information

outside of the materials they already have.

The Court’s ruling: Most of Defendant’s objections are boilerplate and so waived.

With respect to Defendant’s argument that the term “deficiencies” is vague and ambiguous, the

Court holds that while “deficiencies” could be vague and ambiguous in some contexts, since

19

Defendant apparently used this same term in describing cases the unit sent to prosecutors in its

investigation, it is not vague and ambiguous in the context of this case.

Although it is a close call whether an objection asserting the interrogatory “has too large a

temporal scope” is sufficiently specific or adequately articulates the particular harm that would

befall Defendant if it were forced to answer, the Court agrees the temporal scope is too large and

limits the scope to five years. This five-year period shall be chosen by Plaintiff.

Defendant shall answer this interrogatory for a five-year period to be determined by

Plaintiff.

11. Brown Interrogatory No. 15

15. Regarding the Kansas City Police Department from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2021,

please identify each person who has been employed by you by stating their name, date

of birth, race, gender, job title, department name, unit name, wage information, hire

date, date employed, termination date and termination reason.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. The interrogatory lacks specificity and has too large a scope

both as to time and employees who would need to be included. It is vague and

ambiguous in the phrase “wage information.” It is also invasive of personal privacy

without any showing of need.

Brown argues the requested information is needed to identify witnesses and to investigate

whether discrimination occurred for Plaintiff’s comparators. Plaintiff contends Defendant failed

to show specifically how each request for production is not relevant or how each question is overly

broad, burdensome, and not relevant to any party. She also contends the customary temporal

scope in federal court is ten years, but she cites no authority for this claim.

Defendant responds that the interrogatory seeks detailed information regarding everyone

who has worked for the BOPC over a nine-year period and does not attempt to identify comparators

20

or other relevant individuals. It argues the interrogatory is overbroad, not relevant, and not

proportional because the interrogatory lacks specificity and has too large a scope both as to time

and employees who would need to be included. It is also vague and ambiguous in the phrase

“wage information,” and invasive of third-parties personal privacy without any showing of need.

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s objection that the request is unduly burdensome and

overbroad fails to specifically explain how they are unduly burdensome and overbroad, so it is

impermissible boilerplate. That said, this interrogatory seeks so much specific information for

every single KCPD employee for a nine-year period that is facially burdensome and overbroad,

and so the objection is sustained. See Cotton v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. 12-2731-JW,

2013 WL 3819974, at *2 (D. Kan. July 24, 2013) (holding that where a discovery request is overly

broad on its face, the proponent bears the burden of convincing the court that the request is proper).

12. Brown Interrogatory No. 16

16. Please identify each person who has disclosed information to the Kansas City Star

about the Crimes Against Children Unit from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2021 by

stating their name, date of birth, race, gender, job title, department name, wage

information, hire date, and termination date.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It is also invasive of personal privacy without any showing of

need. The interrogatory lacks specificity and has too large a temporal scope. It is

further vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “wage information” and

“disclosed information.”

Plaintiff Brown argues this interrogatory is needed to identify witnesses and to investigate

whether discrimination occurred through plaintiff’s comparators. Brown also argues Defendant

failed to show specifically how each request for production is not relevant or how each question

is overly broad, burdensome and not relevant to any party, and that any privacy concerns are a

21

non-issue due to the protective order in this matter. Brown also argues, without citation to

authority, that the customary temporal scope in federal cases is ten years.

Defendant observes Brown provided no explanation as to why individuals who “disclosed

information” to the Star for any reason over a nine-year period is necessary. It argues the

interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant, and not proportional to the needs in

this case, as well as vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrases “wage information” and

“disclosed information.” Plaintiffs fail to meet their burden for a need for such broad information.

Defendant cites Cotton v. Costco Wholesale Corporation for support.

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s objections that the interrogatory is overbroad, unduly

burdensome, irrelevant, and seeks information not proportional to the litigation are boilerplate and

so waived.

The Court agrees, however, that the terms “disclosed information” and “wage information”

in the context of this interrogatory are vague and ambiguous. The interrogatory fails to explain

what “disclosed information” means, or what specific information Plaintiff is seeking by asking

for “wage information.” “Disclosed information” could mean many things. For example, it

could be asking for only officially disclosed information, such as that an official KCPD

spokesperson(s) provided to the Star, or any and all information—including anonymous tips—that

any KCPD employee provided to the Star. Exactly what information Defendant is expected to

supply for “wage information” is similarly unclear. Current salary information? Starting salary?

All salary history? Does the request cover deferred compensation, such as 401(k) benefits, or

non-cash renumeration, such as the use of a car? Since Plaintiffs did not define or clarify what

22

either of these terms means, and these terms could potentially cover so much information,

Defendant’s objection is sustained.

13. Brown Interrogatory No. 17

17. Please identify each person who has been employed by the Quality Control Unit from

January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2021 by stating their name, date of birth, race, gender,

job title, department name, wage information, hire date, and termination date.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It seeks too large a temporal scope and is vague and ambiguous

in the phrase “wage information.” It is also invasive of personal privacy without any

showing of need.

Brown’s argument here is identical to that articulated for interrogatory number 16.

Defendant responds: Brown has failed to show why she needs a detailed list of employees

for this unit for a nine-year period; the interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant, and not proportional; and the phrase “wage information” is vague and ambiguous.

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s objections are boilerplate and so waived.

Since a report prepared in part by the Quality Control Unit appears to have been the basis

for some of the adverse employment actions taken against Brown, the identity of the individuals

in this unit are discoverable. What Plaintiffs seek for wage information is unclear. Accordingly,

Defendant shall answer this interrogatory in full, with the exception of providing any answer to

the request for “wage information” since it is vague and ambiguous.

23

14. Brown Interrogatory No. 18

18. Please state each Unit and/or Department that has been investigated by the Quality

Control Unit from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2021 by stating the name of the Unit

and/or Department, the date of the investigation, a description of each reprimands or

punishment issued by you for its findings, and a description of the findings.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It seeks too large a temporal scope and is vague and ambiguous

in the phrase “each reprimands or punishment.” It is also invasive of personal

privacy without any showing of need.

Brown’s argument here is essentially identical to that made in interrogatory numbers 16

and 17.

Defendant argues Brown has not met her burden of showing why she needs this

information, especially for a nine-year period. Defendant argues there is no suggestion of

differential treatment or other relevance because there is no suggestion of any similar course of

events, nor does Brown suggest anyone involved in the decisions adverse to her was presented

with a similar situation for other officers yet handled it differently. Defendant cites Beasley v.

Warren Unilube, Inc., for support. 933 F.3d 932, 938 (8th Cir. 2019) (holding that to show an

employer treated similarly-situated employees in a disparate manner, plaintiffs and the potential

comparators “must have dealt with the same supervisor, have been subject to the same standards,

and engaged in the same conduct without any mitigating or distinguishing circumstances”).

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s objections that the interrogatory is overbroad, unduly

burdensome, irrelevant, and seeks information not proportional to the needs of the case are

boilerplate and so waived. Further, Defendant has not explained why for this question nine years

is too long a timeframe, or why “reprimands or punishment” is vague and ambiguous. Whether

24

other units or departments received the same level of scrutiny is discoverable, and Defendant has

not made any showing that the Protective Order that is currently in place cannot shield the

disciplinary records of third-parties from any potential invasion of privacy.5

Defendant shall answer this question.

15. Brown Interrogatory No. 19

19. Please state each person that worked for or had relations with the Kansas City Police

Department’s Crimes Against Children Unit between January 1, 2012 to January 1,

2021, including their name, date of birth, race, gender, job title, department name, wage

information, hire date and termination date.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It seeks too large a temporal scope and is vague and ambiguous

in the phrase “wage information” and “had relations with.” It is also invasive of

personal privacy without any showing of need.

Brown’s argument here is essentially identical to that for interrogatory number 16.

Defendant argues this interrogatory is too broad and Plaintiffs have not explained what

they mean by “had relations with.” Alternately, even if Plaintiffs were treated differently than

others in the CAC, any disparity is reflected in the CAC investigatory materials provided to

Plaintiff because those are the individuals who were investigated, reviewed, and disciplined by the

same people who disciplined plaintiffs.

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s objections that the interrogatory is overbroad, unduly

burdensome, irrelevant, and seeks information not proportional to the needs of the case are

5 See Protective Order at 2 (defining “Confidential Information” as information that “could potentially cause harm

to the interests of the disclosing party or nonparties”, which shall consist of “employment records,” “confidential

documents and information related to investigations,” and “records whose disclosure is restricted or prohibited by

statute.”), ECF No. 57.

25

boilerplate and so waived. Defendant’s objection that the phrase “worked for or had relations

with” the CAC is vague and ambiguous is sustained, and so Defendant need not answer this

interrogatory.

16. Brown Interrogatory No. 20

20. Please state each responsibility and work duty the Crimes Against Children Unit’s

assisting squad had between January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2021.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It seeks too large a temporal scope. It is vague and ambiguous

in its use of the phrases “each responsibility and work duty” and “assisting squad.”

It is also invasive of personal privacy without any showing of need.

Brown’s argument here is essentially identical to that for interrogatory number 16, with the

clarification that “each responsibility” and “work duty” refers to obligations a person who works

for the assisting squad in the CAC would have, and that “assisting squad” was a term used by

Defendant to describe the squad that assisted the CAC with the high caseloads.

Defendant responds that Brown has still not adequately explained what she means by “each

responsibility and work duty” and “assisting squad.” Defendant suggests that if she were seeking

a description of what each detective was doing every day for nine years, this is too broad. And if

she wants a summary of typical assignments and duties, plaintiffs already know this information

for the relevant timeframe when they worked in CAC, and the CAC investigation materials

likewise reflect what detectives were doing. Finally, Defendant cites Cotton v. Costco Wholesale

Corporation for the proposition that Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden here because the

request is facially objectionable.

26

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s objections that the interrogatory is overbroad, unduly

burdensome, irrelevant, and seeks information not proportional to the needs of the case are

boilerplate and so waived. Defendant’s objection that the phrases “each responsibility and work

duty” and “assisting squad” are vague and ambiguous is sustained. Further, a plausible reading

of these phrases would render the request so broad, particularly for a nine-year period, that the

request is facially objectionable. See id.

17. Brown Interrogatory No. 21

21. Please state all the occurrences at the Kansas City Police Department where an

employee complained about racial, age, or sex discrimination or was written up for a

racist, ageist, or sexist comment from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2021 by identifying

the name of the individual, the title of the individual, the date of the occurrence, a

description of each reprimands or punishment issued by you for this occurrence, and a

description of the occurrence.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It seeks too large a temporal scope and information regarding

individuals too unrelated to Plaintiffs’ allegations. It is also vague and ambiguous in

its use of the phrases “complained about,” “written up,” and “each reprimands or

punishment.” It is also invasive of personal privacy without any showing of need.

In addition to the boilerplate arguments, Brown suggests answers to this interrogatory are

needed to identify witnesses and investigate whether discrimination occurred during Defendant’s

investigative process.

Defendant responds that this interrogatory does not define what is meant by “complained

about,” “written up,” and “each reprimands or punishment.” It also argues the information sought

is not connected to these Plaintiffs, to the same alleged supervisors or decisionmakers, or to the

same types of discrimination alleged here. Defendant cites Beasley in support of its claim that

27

Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden for showing discovery into similarly-situated sweeping

discovery is appropriate. It also cites a federal case applying Missouri privilege law recognizing

an employee’s general right to privacy in his employment records. Mitchell v Mims, No. 4:18-

cv-0515-DGK, 2019 WL 573435, at *3 (W.D. Mo. Feb. 12, 2019).

The Court’s ruling: Although Defendant’s objections that the interrogatory is

overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and seeks information not proportional to the needs of

the case are boilerplate, the interrogatory is facially overbroad with respect to conducting

“similarly-situated” discovery when Brown and the other Plaintiffs have made no showing such

discovery is appropriate. See Cotton, 2013 WL 3819974, at *2; Beasley, 933 F.3d at 938.

Plaintiff’s request is denied.

18. Brown Interrogatory No. 22

22. Has there ever been any litigation initiated against the defendant concerning any race,

age, and/or gender discrimination and/or harassment from January 1, 2012 to January

1, 2021? If so, please [state]:

a. the title and date of each action;

b. the court in which the action was venued

c. the name and address of the attorney for the plaintiff in each such action;

d. the outcome of each such action; and

e. the name, title and address of each employee or agent of the defendant who testified

at the trial or gave a deposition.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It seeks too large a temporal scope and information regarding

individuals too unrelated to Plaintiffs’ allegations.

28

Brown’s arguments are identical to those concerning interrogatory 21. That is, in addition

to their boilerplate arguments, she contends this information is needed to identify witnesses and

investigate whether discrimination occurred through Defendant’s investigative process.

Defendant’s response is similar to that above.

The Court’s ruling: This interrogatory seeks information on every single lawsuit filed

against Defendant from 2012 to 2021 that alleges race, age, or gender discrimination. Although

Defendant’s objections that the interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and

seeks information not proportional to the needs of the case are boilerplate, this interrogatory is so

facially overbroad with respect to conducting “similarly-situated” discovery that Defendant’s

objection is sustained. See Cotton, 2013 WL 3819974, at *2; Beasley, 933 F.3d at 938.

19. Moore Interrogatory No. 10

10. Please identify each person who has been employed by Internal Affairs from January

1, 2012 to January 1, 2021 by stating their name, date of birth, race, gender, job title,

department name, wage information, hire date, and termination date.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It seeks too large a temporal scope and is vague and ambiguous

in the phrase “wage information.” It is also invasive of personal privacy without any

showing of need.

While Moore’s memo makes several applicable boilerplate arguments germane to

Defendant’s objections (“Defendant failed to show specifically how each request for production is

not relevant or how each question is overly broad, burdensome and not relevant to any party. The

customary temporal scope in federal cases is 10 years.”), she also argues, “A citation to over 10,000

pages of documents is not in sufficient detail to enable the plaintiff to locate and identify any

adequate response as easily as the defendant could.”

29

In addition to its boilerplate arguments, Defendant contends Moore has not demonstrated

why she needs a list of every person who has been employed by Internal Affairs for a nine-year

period along with personal information and their “wage information.”

The Court’s ruling: This interrogatory illustrates how Plaintiffs’ counsel has employed

boilerplate arguments throughout their memos. Here, counsel complains about Defendant citing

to an excessive number of documents in its answer, when, in fact, Defendant cited no documents

at all in this answer. Plaintiffs’ argument appears to be a typographical error caused by cutting

and pasting arguments throughout its memos. 6

Although Defendant’s objections that the interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome,

irrelevant, and seeks information not proportional to the needs of the case are boilerplate, Moore’s

request for the identity, demographic information, and “wage information” of everyone who

worked in Internal Affairs for the last nine years is facially overbroad, and so the objection is

sustained. See id.

20. Moore Interrogatory No. 11

11. Please state each Unit and/or Department that has been investigated by Internal Affairs

from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2021 by stating the name of the Unit and/or

Department, the date of the investigation, a description of each reprimands or

punishment issued by you for its findings, and a description of the findings.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It seeks too large a temporal scope and is vague and ambiguous

in the phrase “each reprimands or punishment.” It is also invasive of personal

privacy without any showing of need.

6 For example, the Court notes the virtually identical sentences appear eight times in Plaintiff Solomon’s brief alone:

“While defendants can use document production to respond to interrogatories, that is only if the answer can be clearly

derived from the production. In this case, it is not as the defendant cites to over 10,000 documents to answer an

interrogatory that can be simply responded to in a simple paragraph.”

30

In their memos, both parties assert their boilerplate arguments.

The Court’s ruling: The information sought is discoverable because investigations into

how other units or departments were reprimanded or punished may reveal disparities in how

Plaintiffs were treated. By asserting boilerplate objections without any additional explanation,

Defendant has waived its objections to this interrogatory. And this is another instance where it is

a close call asserting the interrogatory “has too large a temporal scope” is sufficiently specific or

adequately articulates the particular harm that would befall Defendant if it were forced to answer.

The Court agrees the temporal scope is too large and limits the scope to five years. This five-year

period shall be chosen by Plaintiff.

Defendant shall answer this interrogatory for a five-year period to be determined by

Plaintiff. To ensure there are no other disputes associated with this interrogatory, the Court notes

this question asks about investigations of units and departments, not individuals. Defendant need

not provide information on individuals.

21. Moore Interrogatory No. 12

12. Please state each caseload for each Unit and/or Department, from January 1, 2012 to

January 1, 2021, by stating the total caseload each year, the total cases closed, the total

cases sent to the prosecutor, the total employees in each Unit and/or Department, the

total cases that had deficiencies, the reprimands or punishments given for those

deficiencies, the total cases that resulted in a prosecution and the total cases that were

closed without a charge filed.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. The interrogatory lacks specificity and has too large a scope

both as to time and as to “Units and/or Departments”. It is further vague and

ambiguous in its use of the term “deficiencies.”

31

Moore’s briefing on this issue asserts boilerplate arguments but does not discuss the

specifics of this interrogatory.

Defendant argues that comparing caseloads and specifics for other units is not an apples-

to-apples comparison and therefore improper. It argues that Plaintiffs’ contention that they had a

higher workload than CAC coworkers and were disciplined more severely than these caseworkers

can be explored in the CAC investigation materials already provided to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs

have provided no explanation for a need for such information outside of the materials they already

have.

The Court’s ruling: Although Defendant’s objections that the interrogatory is

overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and seeks information not proportional to the needs of

the case are boilerplate, this interrogatory is facially overbroad and so Defendant’s objection is

sustained. See id.

22. Moore Interrogatory No. 13

13. Please state each person who has committed a policy and/or procedure violation in the

Crimes against Children Unit from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2021 by identifying

the name of the individual, the title of the individual, the date of the occurrence, a

description of each reprimands or punishment issued by you for this occurrence, and a

description of the occurrence.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It seeks too large a temporal scope and information regarding

individuals too unrelated to Plaintiffs’ allegations. It is vague and ambiguous in its

use of the phrase “each reprimands or punishment.” It is also invasive of personal

privacy without any showing of need. Subject to and without waiving these

objections, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), the BOPC refers

plaintiff to documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for

Production of Documents regarding the investigation into the Crimes Against

32

Children Unit at issue in this case. In particular, see BOPC000001-127, 94, 3137-

13853, 4176-4177, and 14627-14652.

In her briefing, Moore asserts her boilerplate arguments, including that Defendant’s

citation to over 10,000 pages of documents does not identify responsive documents with sufficient

detail, but does not discuss the specifics of this interrogatory.

In its response, Defendant reiterates its boilerplate objections and adds Plaintiffs have not

shown the need for such information beyond the materials already provided to them. Citing

caselaw, Defendant argues there is no obligation on it to distill the information in these materials

into a paragraph for Plaintiffs’ convenience. Defendant does not, however, maintain its objection

that the phrase “each reprimand[s] or punishment” is vague and ambiguous.

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s boilerplate objections that the interrogatory is

overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and seeks information not proportional to the needs of

the case are waived. How other individuals in the CAC were disciplined during the same time

period is discoverable, and the need for this information in the litigation outweighs any potential

invasion of privacy.7 While this interrogatory could possibly be potentially burdensome or not

proportional to the needs of the case, Defendant’s boilerplate arguments fail to explain how.

Finally, since Defendant has apparently dropped its objection that the phrase “each reprimand or

punishment” is vague and ambiguous, the Court will not consider this argument.

Although after objecting to the interrogatory Defendant also answered it by referring

Plaintiffs to over 10,000 pages, because neither party has described what is in these documents,

the Court has no idea whether Defendant has identified responsive documents in sufficient detail.

7 Also, the privacy interests of nonparties in their disciplinary records are already protected under the Protective Order.

33

Consequently, the Court instructs Defendant to answer this question again. If Defendant

answers this question by referring Plaintiff to records, it must specify those records in sufficient

detail to enable Plaintiff to readily locate and identify them. Referring Plaintiff to large numbers

of records, only a handful of which are actually responsive, is not acceptable.

23. Moore Interrogatory No. 14

14. Please state each and every investigative finding in the Crimes Against Children Unit

Investigation from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2021.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It seeks too large a temporal scope and is vague and ambiguous

in its use of the phrase “each investigative finding from January 1, 2012 to January

1, 2021.” Subject to and without waiving these objections, pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 33(d), the BOPC refers plaintiff to documents produced in

response to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents regarding the

investigation into the Crimes Against Children Unit at issue in this case. In

particular, see BOPC000001-127, 94, 3137-13853, 4176-4177, and 14627-14652.

Plaintiffs restate their boilerplate arguments that Defendant’s reference to the above-

numbered documents “is insufficient pursuant to the standard of FRCP 33(b)4, 33(d)(1);”

Defendant failed to show specifically how each request for production is not relevant or how each

question is overly broad, burdensome and not relevant; the customary temporal scope in federal

cases is 10 years; Defendant fails to provide a written answer which would properly respond to the

interrogatory; and that the citation to over 10,000 pages of documents is insufficiently specific for

Plaintiffs to locate and identify any adequate response as easily as Defendant could. Plaintiffs do

not cite any authority supporting their positions.

Defendant argues this is a prime example of Plaintiffs’ misuse of Rule 33(d).

34

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s claim the interrogatory is overbroad, unduly

burdensome, not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional

to the needs of the case, is impermissible boilerplate. Consequently, objections on these grounds

are waived. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4).

With respect to Defendant’s answering the question by citing to 10,000 pages, because

neither party has described what is in these records, the Court does not know how responsive these

documents are. Since it is likely that the CAC investigation findings would be located in the

documents pertaining to that investigation, Defendant’s representation that the documents it has

produced are responsive to this interrogatory is plausible. Plaintiffs bear the burden of

demonstrating they are entitled to the relief sought, and they have not made any showing that

Defendant has cited an excessive number of unresponsive documents (for example, by citing

specific pages which are non-responsive). The Court denies Plaintiff the requested relief.

24. Moore Interrogatory No. 15

15. Please provide a list of the allocated caseload for each employee in the Crimes Against

Children Unit Investigation from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2021.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It seeks too large a temporal scope and information regarding

individuals too unrelated to Plaintiffs’ allegations. It is vague and ambiguous in its

use of the phrase “each reprimands or punishment.” Subject to and without waiving

these objections, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), the BOPC refers

plaintiff to documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for

Production of Documents regarding the investigation into the Crimes Against

Children Unit at issue in this case. In particular, see BOPC003137-13853.

With respect to this interrogatory, Plaintiffs’ assert their boilerplate arguments, in addition

to noting that Defendant’s reference to “each reprimands or punishment” is not germane.

35

In reply, Defendant asserts its boilerplate arguments, but also intimates that the answers

Plaintiffs seek are in the CAC investigation materials that have already been provided to Plaintiffs.

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s objections that the interrogatory is overbroad, unduly

burdensome, irrelevant, and seeks information not proportional to the needs of the case are

impermissible boilerplate and waived.

Further, assuming for the sake of argument that the answers to this interrogatory can be

found in the previously disclosed documents, Defendant’s referring Plaintiffs to over 10,000 pages

of Bates-stamped documents to answer a fairly straightforward question about caseloads does not

seem to comply with Rule 33(d)’s requirement that the records be specified with sufficient detail.

Defendant’s objection is overruled. Defendant shall provide a list—not refer Plaintiffs to

documents—of the allocated caseload for each employee in the CAC from January 1, 2012 to

January 1, 2021.

25. Moore Interrogatory No. 16

16. Please state each and every person who received reprimand or punishment for improper

recording practices for inventory of the evidence locker from January 1, 2012 to

January 1, 2021 by identifying the name of the individual, the title of the individual,

the date of the occurrence, a description of each reprimands or punishment issued by

you for this occurrence, and a description of the occurrence.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It is also invasive of personal privacy without any showing of

need. Subject to and without waiving these objections, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 33(d), the BOPC refers plaintiff to documents produced in response

to Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents regarding the investigation

into the Crimes Against Children Unit at issue in this case. In particular, see

BOPC003137-13853.

Both parties’ briefs assert arguments similar to those raised above.

36

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s boilerplate objections that the interrogatory is

overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and seeks information not proportional to the needs of

the case are waived.

Defendant’s referring Plaintiffs to over 10,000 pages of Bates-stamped documents to

answer a simple question about who has been reprimanded or punished for improper recording

practices for inventory in the evidence locker does not seem to comply with Rule 33(d)’s

requirement that the records be specified with sufficient detail.

Defendant shall answer this question as written and not refer Plaintiffs to documents.

26. Moore Interrogatory No. 17

17. Please state each and every person who received reprimand or punishment pursuant to

the Crimes Against Children Unit Investigation findings from January 1, 2012 to

January 1, 2021 by identifying the name of the individual, the title of the individual,

the date of the occurrence, a description of each reprimands or punishment issued by

you for this occurrence, and a description of the occurrence.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It seeks too large a temporal scope and is vague and ambiguous

in its use of the phrase “each reprimands or punishment.” It is also invasive of

personal privacy without any showing of need. Subject to and without waiving these

objections, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), the BOPC refers

plaintiff to documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for

Production of Documents regarding the investigation into the Crimes Against

Children Unit at issue in this case. In particular, see BOPC000001-127, 94, 3137-

13853, 4176-4177, and 14627-14652.

With respect to this interrogatory, both parties’ briefs assert arguments similar to those

raised above.

37

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s boilerplate objections that the interrogatory is

overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and seeks information not proportional to the needs of

the case are waived.

Defendant’s referring Plaintiffs to over 11,000 pages of Bates-stamped documents to

answer a simple question about who has been reprimanded or punished as a result of the CAC

investigation does not comply with Rule 33(d)’s requirement that the records be specified with

sufficient detail to find them.

Defendant shall answer this question as written and not refer Plaintiffs to documents.

27. Moore Interrogatory No. 18

18. Please state each and every person who received reprimand or punishment from the

Kansas City Police Department from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2021 by identifying

the name of the individual, the title of the individual, the date of the occurrence, a

description of each reprimands or punishment issued by you for this occurrence, and a

description of the occurrence.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It seeks too large a temporal scope and information regarding

individuals too unrelated to Plaintiffs’ allegations and is vague and ambiguous in its

use of the phrase “received reprimand” and “each reprimands or punishment.” It

is also invasive of personal privacy without any showing of need.

In her brief, Plaintiff Moore asserts the usual arguments, none of which discuss this

interrogatory specifically.

In its response, Defendant argues Moore has not demonstrated why she needs such

Department-wide information, much less for a nine-year period. It argues there is no suggestion

that the decisionmakers behind other disciplinary decisions for the department are the same as

those who decided Plaintiffs’ punishments, so there is no value to this discovery.

38

The Court’s ruling: Although Defendant’s objections that the interrogatory is

overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant, and seeks information not proportional to the needs of

the case are boilerplate, Plaintiff’s request is excessively broad and burdensome on its face, and

Plaintiff has not shown the need for such material outweighs the burden of producing it. See

Cotton v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. 12-2731-JW, 2013 WL 3819974, at *2.

Defendant’s objection is sustained.

28. Moore Interrogatory No. 19

19. Please state each person that participated in the investigation of the Kansas City Police

Department’s Crimes Against Children Unit between January 1, 2012 to January 1,

2021, including their name, date of birth, race, gender, job title, department name, wage

information, hire date and termination date.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. The interrogatory has too large a temporal scope and is vague

and ambiguous in the phrase “wage information.” It is also invasive of personal

privacy without any showing of need. Subject to and without waiving these

objections, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), the BOPC refers

plaintiff to documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for

Production of Documents regarding the investigation into the Crimes Against

Children Unit at issue in this case. In particular, see BOPC003137-13853, including

13794-13853.

Both parties briefing repeats arguments that have been raised previously. But Defendant

also argues Plaintiffs know the relevant players as well as Defendant, and Plaintiffs have provided

no explanation why it is supposedly easier for Defendant to review documents to identify who

participated than it is for Plaintiffs to review these documents.

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s objections that the interrogatory is overbroad, unduly

burdensome, not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional

39

to the needs of the case, are impermissible boilerplate and waived. For the reasons discussed

earlier, however, the Court holds the term “wage information” is vague and ambiguous so

Defendant need not provide any “wage information.”

Defendant’s argument that citation to 11,000 plus pages of documents for an answer is

sufficient because Plaintiffs know who the “relevant players” is not persuasive. In fact, since

Defendant’s answer does not state that only individuals named in the cited documents participated

in the CAC investigation, so it is unclear whether other individuals may also have participated.

Defendant shall answer this question again either by providing a written answer, responsive

documents, or both.

29. Moore Interrogatory No. 20

20. Please state each person that is/was on the Brady list between January 1, 2012 to

January 1, 2021, including their name, date of birth, race, gender, job title,

department/unit name, wage information, hire date, termination date, and short

description of offense committed.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It has too large a temporal scope and is vague and ambiguous

in the phrase “wage information.” It is also invasive of personal privacy without any

showing of need.

Both parties briefing on this issue is unhelpful. Plaintiff’s Moore’s response does not

explain what the “Brady list” is, and Defendant’s brief is only somewhat better: The Court gleans

from Defendant’s response that the Brady list is a list of individuals the Jackson County Prosecutor

considers having “Brady concerns.” Defendant argues it does not have control over who the

Jackson County Prosecutor places on the list, so discovery into other individuals on the Brady list

40

serves no point, since this case is about Defendant’s decisions to discipline Plaintiffs, not the

Jackson County Prosecutor’s decision to place Plaintiffs on the Brady list.

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s boilerplate objections that the interrogatory is

overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information

not proportional to the needs of the case, are waived. Since Plaintiff Moore has not explained

what the Brady list is, established that Defendant has any control over it, or explained its relevance

to this case, Moore has not shown she is entitled to the relief sought. Plaintiff’s request for relief

is denied.

30. Moore Interrogatory No. 21

21. Please state the policy for the digital maintenance and retention of casework, evidence

and other information in the Crimes Against Children Unit including:

(a) each software program used to retain case work and information in the Crimes

Against Children Unit;

(b) the specific codification, if any, of the policy for case work and evidence retention;

(c) who, if any, has the ability to delete these files, the procedure an employee has to

follow in order to delete files in these programs; and

(d) Each punishment or reprimand given by you for unauthorized file deletions in the

Crimes Against Children Unit from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2021.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It has too large a temporal scope. It is also invasive of

personal privacy without any showing of need.

Moore states she has alleged “[D]efendant used its Tiburon and CMS systems as a way to

discriminate against her by deleting her files and then punishing her for deficiencies due to

evidence lost in the deletions,” and then asserts her boilerplate arguments. Moore Mem. at 10.

41

Defendant responds, “Plaintiffs do not explain how this Interrogatory bears on matters at

issue in this case,” and then reiterates its boilerplate arguments. Def.’s Mem. Ex. 3 at 12.

The Court’s ruling: The dispute concerning this interrogatory is a good example of why

the Court is frustrated by the parties’ behavior..

To begin, contrary to Plaintiffs’ counsels’ assertion, it is debatable whether the Complaint

alleges that “Defendant used its Tiburon and CMS systems as a way to discriminate against her by

deleting her files and then punishing her for deficiencies due to evidence lost in the deletions.” In

fact, the words “Tiburon,” “CMS,” “computer,” “system,” and “deleting” (or “delete”) do not

appear in the Complaint. Of course, in the middle of a single paragraph in the seventy-page

Complaint, it asserts

. . . Sgt. Zink was discovered to maintain a file specifically for the

African American Female Detectives in the CAC Unit and was

caught tampering with files related to the CAC Unit’s

investigations; Capt. Paulson was allowed to use purged information

against the African American Female detectives during the CAC

Unit investigation . . .

Compl. ¶ 22. But this allegation is so vague Defendant can be forgiven for not understanding

how this interrogatory is related to any of the Complaint’s allegations.

That said, once Plaintiff clarified in her memo that “Defendant used its Tiburon and CMS

systems as a way to discriminate against her by deleting her files and then punishing her for

deficiencies due to evidence lost in the deletions,” this should have led to the parties resolving this

dispute without the Court’s intervention. Instead, Defendant responded in its memo, “Plaintiffs

do not explain how this Interrogatory bears on matters at issue in this case.” Def.’s Mem. Ex. 3

at 12.

42

Defendant’s response is incorrect: Plaintiff’ Moore’s memorandum explains why Plaintiffs

propounded this interrogatory. But unfortunately, the Court is the one that had to scour the record

to determine exactly what was going on here, which is a colossal waste of the Court’s time. This

is particularly true since this is a dispute the parties should have been able to resolve without the

Court’s intervention.

The Court rules as follows. By asserting in its answer boilerplate objections that do not

explain exactly why this interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, irrelevant to any party’s

claim or defense, etc., Defendant has waived these objections. This interrogatory is not

excessively broad and burdensome on its face. Defendant shall answer this interrogatory as

asked.

31. Solomon Interrogatory No. 2

2. State the full corporate name, state of incorporation, date of incorporation, all fictitious

names, and date used for you:

Corporate Name: ___________________________________________________

State of incorporation: _______________________________________________

Date of incorporation: _______________________________________________

Fictitious name(s): __________________________________________________

Date authorized to do business in Missouri: ______________________________

Member Names: ____________________________________________________

Member Shares Percentage: ___________________________________________

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. The information is also invasive of personal privacy without

any showing of need. It is also vague and ambiguous as applied to the BOPC.

In her memo, Solomon argues this is a standard interrogatory to which Defendant has failed

to respond. She also argues Defendant has failed to show specifically how the question is overly

broad, burdensome, and not relevant.

43

In its response, Defendant argues this interrogatory is vague and ambiguous as applied to

the BOPC because it “is not a corporation, it is a creature of Missouri statute. Its members hold

no ‘shares’ and are publicly-known because they are publicly appointed.” Def.’s Mem. Ex. 3 at

12.

The Court’s ruling: Defendant should have answered this interrogatory simply by

explaining it is not a corporation. Instead, perhaps because it was frustrated by Plaintiffs’ counsel

propounding upon it a clearly inapplicable interrogatory, Defendant answered with boilerplate

objections.

While Defendant’s frustration with the interrogatory is understandable, by answering with

boilerplate objections that do not explain exactly why the interrogatory is overbroad, unduly

burdensome, irrelevant, etc., Defendant has waived these objections. Defendant shall provide a

written answer to this interrogatory as asked.

32. Solomon Interrogatory No. 13

13. Please state all of the reasons for which you changed plaintiff’s status as a victim to

suspect in the Domestic Violence case.

ANSWER: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), the BOPC refers

plaintiff to documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for

Production of Documents. In particular, see BOPC0000128-964, including 273-348

and 580-597.

Plaintiff argues Defendant’s answering this interrogatory by citing over 800 pages of

documents does not comply with the specificity requirement of Rule 33(d)(1).

Defendant responds that it has produced the criminal investigation file, the records

surrounding the Internal Affairs investigation into Solomon’s domestic violence incident, the

records regarding Solomon’s termination hearing stemming from these matters, and the BOPC’s

44

response to Solomon’s EEOC charge, all of which explain the handling of Solomon’s domestic

violence case. These materials include the sworn testimony of the detective who supposedly

“changed” Solomon’s status and provided both a sworn Internal Affairs statement and sworn

testimony at Solomon’s termination hearing. It also cites Handi-Craft for the proposition that it

does not have to distill all of these records into a paragraph that states all reasons.

The Court’s ruling: Defendant has described what is in the cited documents and why

they are responsive to this interrogatory. Solomon bears the burden of demonstrating she is

entitled to the relief sought and she has not shown Defendant has referred her to unresponsive

documents. Solomon’s request for relief is denied.

33. Solomon Interrogatory No. 16

16. Please explain in detail your policies and procedures regarding employees personally

involved in a domestic violence incident and, by doing so, please identify the

codification of such policies and procedures if any.

ANSWER: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), the BOPC refers

plaintiff to documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for

Production of Documents. In particular, see BOPC0000128-964.

The parties’ arguments on this interrogatory mirror those made with respect to Solomon

Interrogatory No. 13.

The Court’s ruling: Defendant has described what is in the cited documents and why

they are responsive to this interrogatory. Solomon bears the burden of demonstrating she is

entitled to the relief sought, and she has not shown Defendant has referred her to unresponsive

documents. Solomon’s request is denied.

45

34. Solomon Interrogatory No. 17

17. Please state all the occurrences at the Kansas City Police Department from January 1,

2012 to January 1, 2021 where an employee was involved as a suspect or victim in a

domestic violence incident by identifying the name of the individuals, the title of the

individuals, the date of the occurrence, each reprimands or punishment issued by you

for this occurrence, and a description of the occurrence.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. It seeks too large a temporal scope and information regarding

individuals too unrelated to Plaintiffs’ allegations. It is also vague and ambiguous in

its use of the phrase “each reprimands or punishment.” The information is also

invasive of personal privacy without any showing of need.

Solomon argues the answer to this interrogatory is needed to identify witnesses and to

investigate whether discrimination occurred through her comparators; that Defendant failed to

show specifically how the request is not relevant, overly broad, or burdensome; the privacy

concerns are a non-issue because there is a protective order in place; the customary temporal scope

in federal cases is ten years, and the term “each reprimand or punishment” is not vague because it

refers to any disciplinary action which may have been taken.

Defendant responds that the interrogatory seeks exceptionally broad and sensitive

information, the identities of victims of domestic violence, over a nine-year period, despite

Solomon never identifying anyone she contends was treated differently than her. It also contends

Solomon was terminated not just because of a domestic violence incident (after prior domestic

violence incidents), but because she did not cooperate in the investigations into this matter—a

grave failing for a law enforcement officer. It argues there is no suggestion of any similar course

of events, let alone similar decisionmakers or comparators, and she has not suggested that anyone

46

involved in the decisions adverse to her was presented with a similar situation for other officers

yet handled it differently.

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s boilerplate objections that the interrogatory is

overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information

not proportional to the needs of the case, are waived. Even so, because this interrogatory is

excessively broad and burdensome on its face and Plaintiffs have not shown the need for such

material outweighs the burden of producing it, Defendant’s objection is sustained. See Cotton v.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. 12-2731-JW, 2013 WL 3819974, at *2.

35. Solomon Interrogatory No. 18

18. Please state in full and complete detail your procedure in suspending and terminating

an employee.

ANSWER: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), the BOPC refers

plaintiff to documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s First Request for

Production of Documents. In particular, see BOPC0000128-964 and 3137-13853,

including 3099-3136 and 4176-4177.

Solomon argues Defendant’s answering this interrogatory by citing over 10,000 pages of

documents does not comply with the specificity requirement of Rule 33(d)(1), particularly since

the interrogatory “can be simply responded to in a simple paragraph.” Solomon Mem. at 7.

Defendant responds that all the Plaintiffs have the materials regarding their own

suspensions and termination, including the applicable policies. Defendant contends this

interrogatory is too unfocused to serve any meaningful use in this case, and that Plaintiffs have

made no showing that they need to know what they do not already have.

The Court’s ruling: Because neither party has described exactly what is in these 10,000

pages, the Court is unsure how responsive they are to this interrogatory. The Court suspects

47

Bates-numbered pages 3099-3136 and 4176-4177, which Defendant has highlighted specifically

are very responsive. As for the remaining 10,000, the Court suspects Defendant may be

responding to a question about a needle by pointing to a haystack, which is impermissible. But

since Solomon bears the burden of demonstrating she is entitled to the relief sought, and she has

not shown Defendant has referred her to any unresponsive documents, for example, by identifying

any non-responsive documents in the 10,000 pages cited, Plaintiffs’ request for relief is denied.

36. Solomon Interrogatory No. 19

19. Please identify each time a Crimes Against Children Unit employee made a report for

assistance in the Crimes against Children Unit between January 1, 2012 to January 1,

2021.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory lacks specificity or any temporal scope.

It is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and

seeks information not proportional to the needs of the case in seeking information

about each “report for assistance” with no limit or scope as to time or subject, and

the phrase “report for assistance” is vague and ambiguous. Subject to and without

waiving these objections, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), the

BOPC refers plaintiff to documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s First Request

for Production of Documents. In particular, see the documents regarding the

investigation into the Crimes Against Children Unit at issue in this case at

BOPC003137-13853.

In her memo, Solomon argues Defendant’s answering this interrogatory by citing over

10,000 pages of documents does not comply with the specificity requirement of Rule 33(d)(1).

In its memo, Defendant responds that Plaintiffs have the materials regarding their own

suspensions and termination, including the applicable policies, and that this is sufficient. Instead

of arguing the interrogatory lacks temporal scope (as it did in its answer), Defendant contends the

temporal scope is too large. Finally, Defendant contends this interrogatory is too unfocused, and

that Plaintiffs have made no showing that they need to know what they do not already have.

48

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s boilerplate objections that the interrogatory is

overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information

not proportional to the needs of the case, are waived.

With respect to Defendant’s substantive answer, the Court holds its citation to the same

10,000 plus documents it always cites to is not responsive. However, since the interrogatory gives

no guidance whatsoever on what the phrase “report for assistance” means, and this could

potentially encompass a huge number of requests for things overtime, office supplies, new

computers, etc., the Court finds that in the context of this interrogatory the phrase is vague and

ambiguous. Defendant’s objection is sustained.

37. Solomon Interrogatory No. 20

20. Please identify each newspaper article you have participated in between January 1,

2012 to January 1, 2021.

ANSWER: Objection. The interrogatory is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not

relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information not proportional to

the needs of the case. The interrogatory lacks specificity or any temporal scope. It is

also vague and ambiguous in its use of the phrase “you have participated.” Subject

to and without waiving these objections, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

33(d), the BOPC refers plaintiff to documents produced in response to Plaintiff’s First

Request for Production of Documents regarding statements made by authorized

persons on behalf of the Kansas City, Missouri Police Department. In particular, see

BOPC0003093-3098.

In relevant part, Solomon argues

the defendant’s cited documentation is unresponsive. Defendant

provides no newspaper articles, but just a screen grab of their blog.

This evidence is relevant due to plaintiff’s claim that one of the

methods of defendant’s discrimination was through improperly

releasing her personal information to the Kansas City Star.

Plaintiff needs this information in order to compare whether

49

defendant has released similar confidential information during an

ongoing investigation as a comparator.

Solomon Mem. at 8.

Defendant responds that the BOPC and Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department are

constantly in news articles; the term “participated” is vague and ambiguous as used in the

interrogatory; but it has produced the news articles and public statements it made in reference to

the CAC investigation.

The Court’s ruling: Defendant’s boilerplate objections that the interrogatory is

overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to any party’s claim or defense, and seeks information

not proportional to the needs of the case, are waived.

As written, this interrogatory could require Defendant to find and identify at least hundreds,

and perhaps thousands, of newspaper articles appearing in the Kansas City Star in which Defendant

“participated,” almost all of which would have no bearing on this lawsuit. Hence, even though

Defendant has raised boilerplate objections, this interrogatory is, on its face, so overbroad, unduly

burdensome, and seeking information not proportional to the needs of the case, that Defendant’s

objection is sustained. See Cotton v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, No. 12-2731-JW, 2013 WL

3819974, at *2.

Conclusion

In the future, Plaintiffs should craft interrogatories that are narrower in scope and precisely

articulate what they are seeking. If Defendant objects to an interrogatory, it should explain in

detail why and how it is overbroad, unduly burdensome, not relevant to any party’s claim or

defense, seeks information not proportional to the needs of the case, etc. Defendant should also

provide answers to interrogatories to the extent they are not objectionable, and Plaintiffs should be

50

prepared to more fully articulate how the discovery sought is bears on claims or defenses in the

case. To the degree Defendant answers by specifying records, it must specify the records in

greater detail. Counsel for both parties should make better efforts to confer.

Following these steps would not only save the parties the effort of multiple rounds of

briefing, but it also would aid the court in resolving discovery disputes more expeditiously by

bringing to the Court’s attention only the disputes for which there is a genuine disagreement.

Failure to do so may result in sanctions under Rule 11, Rule 26(g), Rule 37, 28 U.S.C. § 1927, or

the Court’s inherent authority. A sanction could encompass a variety of things, including an order

to pay the reasonable expenses, including attorneys’ fees, caused by the violation, or an order

requiring the attorneys involved to research and prepare a presentation for other attorneys on the

proper approaches to propounding and responding to discovery requests. See, e.g., Liguria

Foods, 320 F.R.D. at 189.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: October 26, 2022 /s/ Greg Kays

GREG KAYS, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

51