Francisco et al v. State Farm Insurance Companies et al

Filing 78

ORDER granting 62 Motion to Compel. Plaintiffs shall fully respond to State Farm's Second Set of Interrogatories and State Farm's Second Set of Request for Production within 14 days from the date of this order; and Plaintiffs shall pay S tate Farm's reasonable attorneys' fees in bringing the motion at docket 62. If the parties cannot stipulate to an amount to be paid to State Farm by Plaintiffs, then within 14 days from the date of this order, State Farm shall file a properly supported motion for reasonable fees, and Plaintiffs shall respond within 7 days after the motion is filed. No reply may be filed unless requested by the court. Signed by Judge John W Sedwick on 8/24/15.(JWS)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

7
8
9

Maria Rosario Francisco, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

10
11
12
13
14

vs.
State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company, et al.,
Defendants.

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:14-cv-8111 JWS
ORDER AND OPINION
[Re: Motion at Docket 62]

16
17

I. MOTION PRESENTED

18
19

At docket 62 defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

20

(“State Farm”) moves for an order compelling plaintiffs Maria Rosario Francisco and

21

Catarino Celestino Francisco (“Plaintiffs’”) to respond to State Farm’s Second Set of

22
23

Interrogatories and Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Counsel for
State Farm has filed the required certificate of consultation at docket 62-1. Plaintiffs

24
25
26
27
28

respond at docket 64. State Farm replies at docket 67. Oral argument was requested
but would not assist the court.

1
2

II. BACKGROUND
The court has described the background giving rise to this litigation in detail in

3
4

the order at docket 69. Suffice it to say for present purposes that Plaintiffs are trying to

5

recover money from State Farm pursuant to an underinsured motorist clause in their

6

State Farm insurance policy in excess of the policy limit payment received from the

7
8

insurance company for the driver of the other auto involved in a 2008 auto accident.
The other driver’s policy limit was very substantially less than the amount of the default

9
10

judgment Plaintiff’s obtained against the other driver. Among other things, that

11

judgment includes a finding that Maria Francisco’s injuries have cost her a projected

12

income loss of $423,800 from her tamale making business.1 The motion at bar arises

13

from State Farm’s attempt to obtain information relating to the extent of Plaintiffs’

14
15

damages.
III. DISCUSSION

16
17
18

Copies of the Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Set of Requests for
Admission are found at docket 62-1. State Farm contends that Plaintiffs have simply

19
20

not responded to these discovery requests. Plaintiffs do not deny that they have not

21

responded to the specific discovery requests. Instead, they point to an email chain of

22

communications between counsel and various items referenced therein.

23
24

Plaintiffs’ communications making rather vague reference to materials available
is insufficient to comply with the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil

25
26

Procedure governing how a litigant must respond to written interrogatories. Rule 33(b)

27
28

1

Doc. 36-1 at 11.

-2-

1
2

provides: “Each interrogatory must, to the extent not objected to, be answered
separately and fully in writing under oath.” Plaintiffs have not done this.

3
4

With respect to the requests for production, State Farm’s complaint is that

5

Plaintiffs response “did not include any financial or business information related to

6

Plaintffs’ tamale making business.”2 Plaintiffs do not contend otherwise in their

7

response. Rather, they refer to communications that refer to the contents of a CD

8

containing unidentified “disclosure documents” and unidentified bank statements and

9
10

tax returns. This is too imprecise. What, if anything, in these materials relates to the

11

tamale making business is not explained. If there is information that pertains to income

12

from the tamale business in the materials provided, Plaintiffs must identify it so that it

13

can be reviewed and assessed.

14
15

State Farm also seeks an award of attorneys’ fees. Rule 37(a) (5) provides that

16

where a discovery motion of the sort at bar is granted, the court must (with exceptions

17

not pertinent here) require the recalcitrant party to pay the moving party’s reasonable

18

expenses, including attorneys’ fees.

19

IV. CONCLUSION

20
21

Based on the preceding discussion, State Farm’s motion at docket 62 is

22

GRANTED as follows: Plaintiffs shall fully respond to State Farm’s Second Set of

23

Interrogatories and State Farm’s Second Set of Request for Production within 14 days

24

from the date of this order; and Plaintiff’s shall pay State Farm’s reasonable attorneys’

25
26

fees in bringing the motion at docket 62. If the parties cannot stipulate to an amount to

27
28

2

Doc. 62 at 6.

-3-

1
2

be paid to State Farm by Plaintiffs, then within 14 days from the date of this order, State
Farm shall file a properly supported motion for reasonable fees, and Plaintiffs shall

3
4
5
6

respond within 7 days after the motion is filed. No reply may be filed unless requested
by the court.
DATED this 24th day of August 2015.

7
8
9
10

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-