519    Motion for Leave to Serve Additional Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, or Requests for Admission

37 C.F.R. § 2.120(d)  Interrogatories. The total number of written interrogatories which a party may serve upon another party pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in a proceeding, shall not exceed seventy-five, counting subparts, except that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in its discretion, may allow additional interrogatories upon motion therefor showing good cause, or upon stipulation of the parties, approved by the Board. A motion for leave to serve additional interrogatories must be filed and granted prior to the service of the proposed additional interrogatories and must be accompanied by a copy of the interrogatories, if any, which have already been served by the moving party, and by a copy of the interrogatories proposed to be served. ...

37 C.F.R. § 2.120(e)  Requests for production. The total number of requests for production which a party may serve upon another party pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in a proceeding, shall not exceed seventy-five, counting subparts, except that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in its discretion, may allow additional requests upon motion therefor showing good cause, or upon stipulation of the parties, approved by the Board. A motion for leave to serve additional requests must be filed and granted prior to the service of the proposed additional requests and must be accompanied by a copy of the requests, if any, which have already been served by the moving party, and by a copy of the requests proposed to be served. ...

37 C.F.R. § 2.120(i)  Requests for admission. The total number of requests for admission which a party may serve upon another party pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in a proceeding, shall not exceed seventy-five, counting subparts, except that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in its discretion, may allow additional requests upon motion therefor showing good cause, or upon stipulation of the parties, approved by the Board. A motion for leave to serve additional requests must be filed and granted prior to the service of the proposed additional requests and must be accompanied by a copy of the requests, if any, which have already been served by the moving party, and by a copy of the requests proposed to be served. ...

A motion under 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(d)  for leave to serve additional interrogatories, 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(e) for leave to serve additional requests for production, or 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(i) for leave to serve additional requests for admission must be filed and granted prior to service of the proposed additional interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admission; and must be accompanied both by a copy of any interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admission which have already been served by the moving party, and by a copy of the interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admission proposed to be served. [ Note 1.]

Good cause for the service of additional interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admission will generally be found only where it is shown that there is a legitimate need for further written discovery. [ Note 2.] The mere fact that the additional interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admission may be relevant and narrowly drawn to a single issue, or that they may be easy to answer is insufficient, in and of itself, to show good cause for the service of the additional written discovery. [ Note 3.] Given the Board’s limited jurisdiction and the generous number of interrogatories, requests for production, or requests for admission provided under the Rules, such motions for leave to serve additional written discovery are disfavored.

For further information concerning good cause for a motion to serve additional interrogatories, requests for production, and requests for admission, see TBMP § 405.03(c), TBMP § 406.05(c) and TBMP § 407.05(c), respectively. For information concerning the interrogatory, document request, and request for admission limits specified in 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(d), 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(e)  and 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(i), see TBMP § 405.03, TBMP § 406.045 and TBMP § 407.05.

NOTES:

 1.   37 C.F.R. § 2.120(d); 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(f); and 37 C.F.R. § 2.120(i). See Baron Phillippe De Rothschild S.A. v. S. Rothschild & Co., 16 USPQ2d 1466, 1467 (TTAB 1990); Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby Inc. v. Circle Consulting Group Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1398, 1398 (TTAB 1990); Chicago Corp. v. North American Chicago Corp., 16 USPQ2d 1479, 1480 (TTAB 1990); Brawn of California Inc. v. Bonnie Sportswear Ltd., 15 USPQ2d 1572, 1574 (TTAB 1990); NOTICE OF FINAL RULEMAKING, 56 Fed. Reg. 46376 (September 12, 1991), as corrected at 56 Fed. Reg. 54917 (October 23, 1991).

 2.   See Baron Phillippe De Rothschild S.A. v. S. Rothschild & Co., 16 USPQ2d 1466, 1466-67 n.5 (TTAB 1990). See also MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES TO TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD RULES OF PRACTICE, 81 Fed. Reg. 69950, 69962 (Oct. 7, 2016) ("[E]xamples that may support a showing of good cause [for additional requests for admission] include cases involving foreign parties from whom oral discovery may be unavailable, or requests intended to narrow the issues in dispute in proceedings involving multiple marks and applications or registrations with lengthy identifications of goods and services.").

 3.   See Baron Phillippe De Rothschild S.A. v. S. Rothschild & Co., 16 USPQ2d 1466, 1466-67 n.5 (TTAB 1990) (fact that interrogatories are relevant and narrowly drawn to a single issue does not in and of itself demonstrate good cause for additional interrogatories); Towers, Perrin, Forster & Crosby Inc. v. Circle Consulting Group Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1398, 1399 (TTAB 1990) (fact that interrogatories are easy to answer does not in and of itself constitute good cause for additional interrogatories); Brawn of California Inc. v. Bonnie Sportswear Ltd., 15 USPQ2d 1572, 1574 (TTAB 1990) (fact that the interrogatories are relevant to the proceeding does not in and of itself constitute good cause for additional interrogatories).