IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
DONALD G. GROSS
Civil Action No. 07-399 (EGS/JMF)
AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF HIS
SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Defendant Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (“Defendant” or “Akin Gump”) opposes
Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel Discovery (“Motion”) solely on the grounds of Fed. R. Civ.
P. 34 regarding its obligations for the production of documents. (Defendant’s Opposition to Second
Motion to Compel, July 31, 2007 (“Def. Opp.”).) Plaintiff’s second set of interrogatories, however,
was propounded pursuant to Rule 33. Rule 33 required Defendant to answer Plaintiff’s interrogatory
“fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to, in which event the objecting party shall state the
reasons for objection and shall answer to the extent the interrogatory is not objectionable.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 33(b)(1). Rule 34 is inapplicable here.
Defendant makes no effort to justify its only two objections on the basis of overbreadth and
undue burden. Those objections should be overruled. Defendant appears to suggest a relevance
point based upon an inaccurate assertion that Plaintiff “has not articulated any benefit” to his
interrogatory (Def. Opp. at 5), but Defendant did not lodge a relevance objection. Any objection not
made is waived. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4); Myrdal v. District of Columbia, No. 05-02351, 2007 WL
1655875, *3 (D.D.C. June 7, 2007).
Case 1:07-cv-00399-EGS Document 22 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 1 of 3
GROSS v. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
Given the stage of discovery, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant be ordered to
number the documents using the same bates numbers (with any necessary addition) it has already
used to number each redacted document.
Instead, Defendant misguidedly argues that under Rule 34 i