United States of America v. 34,196 Rentable Square Feet, More or Less, at 3870 Rosin Court, Sacramento, California et al

Filing 57

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 11/13/12 ORDERING that plaintiff's 50 motion for order deeming Requests for Admissions to be admitted, is granted as set forth at hearing. Defendants shall respond to the Requests for Ad missions, in the manner explained at hearing, within ten days of the 11/8/2012 hearing. Plaintiff's 51 motion to compel production of documents and further responses to interrogatories is granted. Defendants shall respond to the interrogatories and requests for production, in the manner explained at hearing, within ten days of the 11/8/2012 hearing. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

No. 2:11-cv-3467 KJM GGH

vs.
34,196 RENTABLE SQUARE FEET,
MORE OR LESS, AT 3870 ROSIN COURT,
SACRAMENTO, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

SUMMARY ORDER
/

17

Previously pending on this court’s law and motion calendar for November 8,

18

2012, was Plaintiffs’ motion to deem requests for admissions admitted, filed October 12, 2012,

19

and motion to compel production of documents and further responses to interrogatories, filed

20

October 15, 2012. Lynn Ernce appeared for plaintiff. Michael Betz represented defendants.

21

After reviewing the joint statement filed November 2, 2012, and having heard oral argument, the

22

court now issues the following summary order.

23

Except for four interrogatories, to which defendants did substantively respond, the

24

court finds that defendants’ responses to the remainder of discovery were unacceptable, as set

25

forth at hearing. Further responses for all such discovery will be ordered.

26

\\\\\
1

1

With respect to interrogatories numbered 7, 8, 9, and 10, defendants made

2

boilerplate objections including those based on the attorney-client privilege and work product

3

protection.1 Nevertheless, defendants did also provide substantive responses to these four

4

interrogatories. In light of the directives at hearing regarding the propriety of defendants’

5

responses and the lack of merit to their objections to these interrogatories, it is unclear if

6

defendants intend to amend these responses. Therefore, based on the impermissibility of their

7

previously stated objections, defendants are directed to supplement these responses with material

8

facts, if necessary.

9

For the reasons stated at hearing, IT IS ORDERED that:

10

1. Plaintiffs’ motion for order deeming Requests for Admissions to be admitted,

11

filed October 12, 2012, (dkt. no. 50), is granted as set forth at hearing. Defendants shall respond

12

to the Requests for Admissions, in the manner explained at hearing, within ten days of the

13

November 8, 2012 hearing.2

14

2. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production of documents and further responses to

15

interrogatories, filed October 15, 2012 (dkt. no. 51), is granted. Defendants shall respond to the

16

interrogatories and requests for production, in the manner explained at hearing, within ten days of

17

the November 8, 2012 hearing.

18

DATED: November 13, 2012

19
20

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
GGH/076

U.S.Rentable.dsy.wpd

21
22
23
24
25
26

1

Defendants are informed that although communications are protected under the
attorney-client privilege, facts and conclusions are not. Just because a fact was incorporated into
a communication with counsel, a client cannot refuse to disclose it. Lopes v. Vieira, 688
F.Supp.2d 1050, 1059 (E.D. Cal. 2010). Facts derived from an attorney’s investigation only
receive qualified work product protection. Doubleday v. Ruh, 149 F.R.D. 601, 606, 607
(E.D.Cal. 1993); see also Holmgren v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573, 577 (9th
Cir. 1992); Handgards, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, 413 F. Supp. 926, 933 (N.D.Cal. 1976).
2

According to the papers, RFA number 13 has been resolved.
2