Connection lost
Server error
O'Connor v. Boeing North American, Inc. Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: In a complex environmental class action, a court ruled that responding to interrogatories by producing voluminous records under FRCP 33(d) is improper without providing specific indices and guidance, as this fails to make the burden of finding answers equal for both parties.
Legal Significance: This case provides a crucial framework for applying FRCP 33(d), clarifying that a responding party cannot simply dump documents but must provide detailed specifications and indices to make information as accessible to the interrogating party as it is to themselves.
O'Connor v. Boeing North American, Inc. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiffs, members of a class action, sued Boeing for personal injury and property damage claims arising from alleged chemical and radioactive contamination from four of its facilities. During discovery, plaintiffs served interrogatories seeking detailed information regarding the use and release of hazardous substances. In response, defendants invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), stating that the answers could be derived from business records they had already produced. However, defendants did not specify which documents contained the answers to which interrogatories, instead referring to the production as a “representative sampling” and arguing that listing all responsive documents would be overly burdensome. Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel, arguing that this response was an impermissible “wholesale dumping” of documents that failed to comply with the rule. Concurrently, defendants filed a motion to compel plaintiffs to answer contention interrogatories regarding the factual basis for their exposure and property contamination claims, to which plaintiffs had objected on relevancy and other grounds.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), may a party responding to interrogatories satisfy its obligation by referring to a mass of previously produced business records without providing specific guidance, such as an index, to locate the responsive information?
No. The court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel, holding that defendants’ responses Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate vel
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), may a party responding to interrogatories satisfy its obligation by referring to a mass of previously produced business records without providing specific guidance, such as an index, to locate the responsive information?
Conclusion
This opinion serves as a practical guide and a strong admonition against Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim a
Legal Rule
To properly invoke the option to produce business records under FRCP 33(d), Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ip
Legal Analysis
The court reasoned that the purpose of FRCP 33(d) is to balance Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adip
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A party answering interrogatories under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) cannot