McColm v. Foremost Insurance Company

Filing 157

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Edward M. Chen Re 108 109 110 111 Defendant's Motions for Discovery. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/28/2011)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

PATRICIA A. McCOLM,

9

Plaintiff,

15

ORDER RE DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR ORDERS (1) COMPELLING
PLAINTIFF’S COOPERATION IN
DISCOVERY, (2) PRECLUDING
PLAINTIFF FROM RELYING ON ANY
DOCUMENT IN TRIAL NOT
PRODUCED IN DISCOVERY, (3)
COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
TO INTERROGATORIES, AND (4)
COMPELLING FURTHER RESPONSE
OR DEEMING ADMITTED REQUEST
FOR ADMISSIONS

16

(Docket Nos. 108-111)

10

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

No. C-09-4132 SI (EMC)

FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY,

12

Defendant.
___________________________________/

13
14

17
18

Defendant’s motion for orders: (1) compelling Plaintiff’s cooperation in discovery, (2)

19

precluding Plaintiff from relying on any document in trial not produced in discovery, (3) compelling

20

further response to interrogatories, and (4) compelling further response or deeming admitted request

21

for admissions, came on for telephonic hearing on April 27, 2011. All parties participated, including

22

Ms. McColm. Good cause appearing therefor, the Court orders as follows:

23

1.

24

Defendant’s motion to compel Plaintiff to provide dates for deposition and appoint a special

Motion to Compel Plaintiff’s Cooperation in Discovery

25

master shall be held in abeyance because Defendant’s motion to compel the deposition (which

26

Defendant wishes to opposes) is pending before Judge Illston. If the deposition is compelled, the

27

Court recommends that a special master be appointed to supervise the deposition. The Court notes

28

that Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas has offered to supervise the deposition if it is held at the

1

Eureka federal courthouse on a date consistent with his schedule, although Eureka is some distance

2

from Ms. McColm’s residence.

3

The Court will enter Defendant’s proposed protective order with respect to the production of

4

confidential information. However, any party wishing to receive such information must sign a

5

statement agreeing to abide by its terms and provided such signed statement to the opposing party

6

before documents deemed confidential are produced.

7

The parties shall meet and confer over any future dispute pursuant to the procedure set forth

addition, the party requesting to meet and confer shall offer 3 alternative dates and times (between 3

10

to 10 days in advance) for such meet and confer from which the opposing party shall choose. Either

11
For the Northern District of California

in Judge Illston’s orders of December 3 and December 17, 2010 (Docket Nos. 90 and 96). In

9

United States District Court

8

party shall be permitted to have a court reporter attend the meet and confer.

12

2.

13

As indicated at the telephonic hearing herein, the Court orders that Ms. McColm provide

Motion to Compel Request for Admissions

14

more specific and clearer responses to Request for Admission Nos. 3, 14, 16, 17, 19, 24, 27, 30, 31,

15

and 32. The term “YOU” shall be construed to mean Ms. McColm and not her father. The terms

16

“responding party” is an inadvertent error and shall be construed to mean “requesting party.” Ms.

17

McColm must either admit, deny, or explain precisely why she can neither admit or deny. She shall

18

comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a)(4). The responses shall be served upon Defendant no later than

19

May 11, 2011. Failure to comply with this order may lead to the Court deeming the requests

20

admitted.

21

3.

22

The motion is denied. The wide ranging interrogatories keyed to responses to the RFA are

Motion to Compel Further Responses to Interrogatories

23

overbroad, cumbersome and do not materially advance the litigation. Cf. Olson v. City of

24

Bainbridge Island, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58171 (W.D. Wash. June 18, 2009) (sustaining objection

25

to overly broad contention interrogatory); HTC Corp. v. Tech Props. Ltd., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

26

4531, 7-8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2011) (denying motion to compel responses to contention

27

interrogatories, explaining that “this Court does not believe that TPL has met its burden to show that

28

HTC’s responses would contribute meaningfully to: (1) clarifying the issues in the case; (2)

2

1

narrowing the scope of the dispute; (3) setting up early settlement discussion; or (4) exposing a

2

substantial basis for a motion under Rule 11 or Rule 56”) (citation and internal quotation marks

3

omitted); In re Ebay Seller Antitrust Litig., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102815, *6 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11,

4

2008) (contention interrogatories “of questionable value to the goal of efficiently advancing the

5

litigation”). Such broad contention-type interrogatories are not favored particularly where the

6

opposing party is pro se and the information sought can be obtained more surgically and effectively

7

through alternative means.

8

4.

9

As indicated at the telephonic hearing, Plaintiff failed to comply with Judge Illston’s order of
December 17, 2011 (Docket No. 96) which stated:

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

If plaintiff intends to rely on any documents other than those
provided by defendant in disclosure or discovery, she shall inform
defendant of this fact by January 14, 2011. By January 14, 2011,
she shall also provide more specific descriptions of the document (e.g.,
the dates of receipts and the types of repairs), or she may provide
copies of the documents, in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 32(a)(1)(A)(ii).

12
13
14
15

Motion to Preclude Reliance of Documents Not Produced

Order at 4:6-10 (emphasis in original).

16

She failed to provide the documents or more specific descriptions of the documents she

17

intended to rely on and which were responsive to Defendant’s documents requests (e.g., dates of

18

receipts). While the Court could impose a preclusion sanction at this point for failing to comply

19

with a court order, particularly since the request for production was propounded nearly nine months

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

3

1

ago, Ms. McColm had a duty to describe supportive documents under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(ii), and she,

2

as Plaintiff, initiated this litigation, the Court will give Ms. McColm one more opportunity to

3

comply by serving the documents (or copies thereof) upon the Defendant no later than May 11,

4

2011. Any documents not so timely served shall be deemed disallowed from evidence at trial.

5

This order disposes of Docket Nos. 108, 109, 110 and 111.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

Dated: April 28, 2011
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States Magistrate Judge

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

4

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

PATRICIA McCOLM,

9

Plaintiff,
v.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-09-4132 SI (EMC)

FOREMOST INSURANCE COMPANY,

12

Defendant.
___________________________________/

13
14
15

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the U.S. District Court, Northern

16

District of California. On the below date, I served a true and correct copy of the attached, by placing

17

said copy/copies in a postage-paid envelope addressed to the person(s) listed below, by depositing

18

said envelope in the U.S. Mail; or by placing said copy/copies into an inter-office delivery receptacle

19

located in the Office of the Clerk.

20
21

Patricia A. McColm
P.O. Box 113
Lewiston, CA 96052

22

Dated: April 28, 2011

RICHARD W. WIEKING, CLERK

23
24
25
26
27
28

By:

/s/ Leni Doyle
Leni Doyle
Deputy Clerk