Business Studies

Assignment: Look at a sample interrogatory at FRITO-LAY INVESTIGATIONS : 08/16/1996: CORRESPONDENCE. This interrogatory was issued by the U.S. Department of Justice in an antitrust investigation against Frito-Lay for possible violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act. What do you notice about the questions? How long do you think it would take to compile a response to these questions? If you were the defendant, would you object to any of them? If so, on what grounds?

Submission Method:

Double spaced, size 12 font
Attach and submit a Microsoft Word document below
For citations and references, you must use APA format.
Due Date: Wednesday of Week 2 at 11:59PM

ANSWER

Frito-Lay Investigations

The department of justice asked very thorough and comprehensive questions to the defendant. The list includes varying types of information that are related to the anti-trust investigation. The questions asked aimed at getting details about most of the employees as well as details about major aspects of the company. Considerably, the questions are not unique information that the company would have at hand. It would take a while to ask and get a response to every question. The questions are 19 in total with some of the questions branching out to create other questions.

To gather the information required and connecting the response would take the organization more than a month to gather and offer a detailed layout that is readable. The questions are in a way less necessary and overbearing while others are irrelevant bringing about the grounds for objection. For instance, any question that failed to relate to the shelf space arrangement is irrelevant. If was the defendant, I would number some of the questions that I object since the interrogatories are required to be straightforward and simple. I would object to some of the questions that I feel are irrelevant and do not follow the procedure. Ideally, interrogatories have to be relevant to the subject matter and reasonably stated to lead the discovery process of evidence (Puin, 2016).

Another ground for objecting to the discovery request is overbroad questions and unduly burdensome. Some of the questions being asked for this interrogatory are too general which calls for an undue burden. For instance, interrogatory 17 is unduly burdensome since it is hard for the company to identify every person that has attempted to enter or entered or exited from other companies that manufacture any of the essential products that the company also manufactures. Interrogatory questions should be clear, short, and direct to collect relevant facts and correct answers. Well asked questions will offer answers with a complete picture of what is happening as well as all the parts and components of the case.

References

Puin, T. (2016). Permissible Scope of an Interrogatory. Ohio Law., 30, 8.