LW Auburn Co v. Hollingsworth Logistics Group LLC, 2:23-cv-00051

L-W Auburn Co. (Plaintiff) sued Hollingsworth Logistics LLC (Defendant) in the Western District of Washington.
The current dispute concerns the adequacy of Hollingsworth's interrogatory responses during discovery.
L-W Auburn alleges that Hollingsworth used improper general objections and failed to provide specific, complete answers.
Hollingsworth responded with objections and narrative responses, but both parties indicated no information was withheld solely due to objections.
The court reviewed the sufficiency and specificity of the responses, considering whether further supplementation or sanctions were warranted.
The motion was decided after oral argument; the court ultimately denied the plaintiff's motion to compel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Use of General Objections	Hollingsworth's general objections are improper and overly broad	General objections are included but not relied on to withhold info	General objections are improper, but moot here
Adequacy of Interrogatory Responses	Answers are conclusory, lack particularity, and are evasive	Narrative responses are complete and have been supplemented	Answers are adequate and sufficiently detailed
Format of Responses (narrative/list)	Hollingsworth should lay out responses as an enumerated list	Narrative responses are sufficient under the rules	Narrative responses are permissible and sufficient
Requirement to Supplement Responses	Concern Hollingsworth may later supplement without justification	Acknowledged duty to supplement responsively	Must supplement promptly or risk sanctions

Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (discovery aims to clarify and narrow disputed facts)
United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677 (discovery designed to make trial a fair contest)
Parrott v. Wilson, 707 F.2d 1262 (adequate response requires conscientious endeavor)