Sempier v. Johnson & Higgins 45 F.2d 724 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1159 (1995) Sempier sued J&H for age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (29 U.S.C. 623). Sempier sent two sets of interrogatories to J&H, but J&H refused to answer the questions. Sempier moved to have the Trial Judge compel J&H to respond to the interrogatories (see Rule 37and Rule 26(b)(5)(c)), but instead, the Trial Judge remanded the issue to a magistrate judge. The magistrate judge compiled a third set of interrogatories from Sempier, but J&H refused to answer those as well. Sempier again moved to have the Trial Judge compel J&H to answer. However, the Trial Judge dismissed the motion and gave J&H a list of his own questions (called a "Bill of Particulars") to answer instead of Sempier's interrogatories. The Trial Court dismissed the case with summary judgment. Sempier appealed. The Appellate Court reversed. The Appellate Court found that there was a genuine issue of material fact, so summary judgment was not appropriate. The Appellate Court found that The Trial Court's use of a "Bill of Particulars" was an abuse of discretion. The Appellate Court found Sempier's interrogatories to be appropriate questions that J&H should have answered and which the Trial Judge should have compelled J&H to answer. Rule 37 and Rule 26(b)(5)(c) allow for a Trial Judge to order facts established, forbid the introduction of evidence, strike the pleadings, file a default judgment, dismiss the action, or hold a party in contempt of court. But they do not permit the wholesale substitution of the Court's questions for the plaintiff's interrogatories! If the judge thought Sempier's interrogatories were inappropriate, he could have denied them using Rule 26(b). If he thought they were appropriate, he could have compelled them under Rule 37(b).