P & K Property, LLC v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 27

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUIRING RESPONSE FROM COUNSEL 25 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/1/2012)

1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
P & K PROPERTY, LLC,

No. C 11-06606 SI

7
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPEL AND REQUIRING RESPONSE
FROM COUNSEL

8
9

v.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY,

11

Defendant.

/

12
13

Currently before the Court is defendant’s motion to compel discovery. Dkt. 25. Although

14

defendant filed its requests as a statement pursuant to the Court’s July 28, 2011 Standing Order, the

15

Court will treat defendant’s requests as a motion to compel because of plaintiff counsel’s apparent

16

failure to coordinate with defendant’s counsel on the statement and on discovery requests generally.

17

See Dkts. 25, 26. According to defendant’s counsel, “[p]laintiff’s counsel is ignoring us in our attempts

18

to obtain discovery. We are getting no responses to our voicemail messages, emails, or the discovery

19

statement we filed with the Court . . . We are at loss as to what to do.” Dkt. 26.

20

At issue are: (1) plaintiff’s interrogatory responses; (2) plaintiff’s failure to produce requested

21

documents; (3) the manner in which plaintiff has produced/should produce documents; and (4)

22

plaintiff’s failure to produce a privilege log. Defendant’s motion consists of two sets of requests. The

23

first set of requests relates to defendant’s request for the production of documents (set 1) and special

24

interrogatories (set 1). Dkt. 25-1. Upon receiving plaintiff’s responses (Dkt. 25-2), which defendant’s

25

counsel considered inadequate, the parties met on June 13, 2012, and plaintiff’s counsel agreed to

26

provide a verification, supplemental responses, a privilege log, and responsive documents. Dkt. 25.

27

Subsequently, plaintiff has provided none of this material. Id.

28

The second set of requests relates to a 30(b)(6) deposition noticed for August 3, 2012. Dkt. 25-3.

1

The deposition notice requested 41 categories of documents that were not initially produced. At the

2

deposition, plaintiff’s counsel promised that such documents would be produced, but shortly thereafter,

3

produced only some of the 41 categories of documents requested.

4

Plaintiff’s counsel have not objected to the production of either set of documents or filed any

5

response to defendant’s statement (Dkt. 25) or letter (Dkt. 26). It appears from the record available to

6

the Court that plaintiff’s counsel simply has not been diligent in producing documents as agreed and as

7

required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

8
9

Having reviewed the parties papers and the record available, and having considered the
reasonableness of defendant’s requests, the Court hereby ORDERS plaintiff to:

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

(1) verify its interrogatory responses; provide supplemental responses to requests for production

11

that state if responsive documents exist and will be produced; provide a privilege log; produce

12

responsive documents organized by request categories; and provide verified supplemental

13

responses that answer each interrogatory in a complete and straightforward manner.

14

(2) produce all documents requested by the deposition notice, organized to correspond with the

15

notice categories.

16

Plaintiff shall respond to this Order and produce the above documents to defendants no later than

17

October 12, 2012.

18

In addition, plaintiff’s counsel shall, no later than October 5, 2012, file with the Court a

19

written explanation why counsel has not communicated with defendant’s counsel on these matters.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: October 1 , 2011
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

2