O'Brien v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
25 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1036, 443 F.Supp. 1182, 1977 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12241 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b), an interrogatory is permissible if it seeks an opinion or contention that relates to the application of law to the facts of the case, but it is objectionable if it seeks a pure legal conclusion unrelated to the case's specific facts.
Facts:
- A member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and its Local 613, distributed literature to other union members.
- A fellow union member filed charges against the plaintiff, alleging the literature was detrimental to the union and violated the IBEW constitution.
- Local 613's executive board held a hearing, found the plaintiff guilty, fined him $2,725.00, and temporarily suspended him from union activities.
- The decision of Local 613 was rescinded upon discovering that the parent union, IBEW, had sole jurisdiction over the charges.
- The International Executive Council of IBEW held a new hearing based on the same charges.
- Following the second hearing, the IBEW found the plaintiff guilty and imposed a $100 fine.
Procedural Posture:
- A union member filed an action in the U.S. District Court against Local 613 and its parent international union, IBEW.
- The complaint alleged that disciplinary actions taken against the plaintiff violated his free speech rights under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA).
- Defendant IBEW filed a motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff's claims.
- During discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel defendant Local 613 to answer a series of interrogatories.
- Local 613 objected to several interrogatories, arguing they sought irrelevant information or impermissible legal conclusions.
- The District Court considered the IBEW's motion for summary judgment and the parties' various discovery motions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an interrogatory asking a party to explain why its internal rules are not invalidated by a federal statute seek a permissible application of law to fact under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b), or an impermissible pure legal conclusion?
Opinions:
Majority - Edenfield, District Judge
Yes, such an interrogatory seeks an impermissible pure legal conclusion. While Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b) permits interrogatories that involve opinions or contentions about the application of law to fact, it does not permit interrogatories that ask for pure legal conclusions unrelated to the facts. The court distinguished between two of the plaintiff's interrogatories. An interrogatory asking the union to explain how the plaintiff's specific statements violated the union constitution was permissible because it sought an application of law (the constitution) to the central facts (the statements). However, an interrogatory asking the union to explain why its constitutional provisions were not deprived of force by the LMRDA was deemed impermissible because it sought a pure legal conclusion about the validity of a rule, which is a legal issue for the court, not a factual contention for discovery.
Analysis:
This order clarifies the scope of discovery under FRCP 33(b), particularly regarding 'contention interrogatories.' The decision provides a clear example of the distinction between a permissible inquiry into an opponent's legal theory as applied to facts and an impermissible demand for abstract legal argumentation. It reinforces the principle that discovery is intended to unearth facts and narrow factual disputes, not to compel an opposing party to provide a legal brief through interrogatories. This precedent guides litigants in crafting questions that effectively probe the factual basis of legal claims without improperly shifting the burden of legal research and argument into the discovery phase.
