Subramani v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. et al

Filing 63

ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 53 Motion to Compel; granting 54 Motion to Compel (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2014)

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

KARTHIK SUBRAMANI,

7

Plaintiff,

8
v.

For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

9
10
11

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; FIDELITY
NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY; et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17

I.

) Case No. 13-cv-01605-SC
)
) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
) MOTIONS TO COMPEL
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

INTRODUCTION
Now before the Court are Defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.'s

18
19

("Wells Fargo") motions to compel responses to requests for

20

admission, ECF No. 53 ("RFA Mot."), and to compel responses to

21

Wells Fargo's first set of interrogatories, ECF No. 54 ("Interr.

22

Mot.").

23

are fully briefed, 1 and the Court finds them suitable for

24

disposition without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-

25

1(b).

26

and Wells Fargo's request for sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT

27
28

1

Wells Fargo also seeks monetary sanctions.

Both motions

For the reasons set forth below, the motions are GRANTED,

ECF Nos. 58 ("Interr. Opp'n"), 59 ("RFA Opp'n"), 61 ("Interr.
Reply"), 62 ("RFA Reply").

1

PREJUDICE.

2
3
4

II.

BACKGROUND
This is a mortgage foreclosure case.

Plaintiff Karthik

violation of the terms of a Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

7

October 7, 2014, Wells Fargo served upon Mr. Subramani its First

8

Set of Requests for Admission and First Set of Interrogatories.

9

United States District Court

Subramani alleges that Wells Fargo securitized his home loan in

6

For the Northern District of California

5

Grewal Decl. I ¶ 2.

On

On November 10, 2014, Mr. Subramani served on

10

Wells Fargo responses to both the interrogatories and the requests

11

for admission.

12

contacted counsel for Mr. Subramani to express Wells Fargo's

13

concerns with Mr. Subramani's responses.

14

Subramani's attorney responded by asserting that the responses

15

"answered the questions and were responsive."

16

Subramani's attorney refused to amend the answers but informed

17

Wells Fargo that it had "the option of making a motion to compel

18

with the Court for the relief you seek."

19

moves to compel.

Id. ¶¶ 5-6.

The next day, counsel for Wells Fargo
Id. Ex. E.

Id.

Mr.

Id. Ex. F.

Mr.

Wells Fargo now

20
21

III. DISCUSSION

22

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize party-initiated

23

discovery of any evidence that is relevant to any party's claims or

24

defenses.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

25

A.

26

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 provides that "[a] party

Requests for Admission

27

may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for

28

purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any matters
2

application of law to fact, or opinions about either . . . ."

3

R. Civ. P. 36(a).

4

not admitted, the answer must specifically deny it or state in

5

detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it."

6

Fed R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).

7

assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to

8

admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable

9

United States District Court

within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to . . . facts, the

2

For the Northern District of California

1

inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is

Fed.

The same rule requires that "[i]f a matter is

Additionally, "[t]he answering party may

10

insufficient to enable it to admit or deny."

11

requesting party believes an answer to be insufficient or an

12

objection to be meritless, that party may move to determine the

13

answer or objection's sufficiency.

14

Id.

If the

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(5).

Wells Fargo asserts that Mr. Subramani's answers to requests

15

for admission ("RFA") numbers 5, 8, and 9 were insufficient.

RFA 5

16

asks Mr. Subramani to "Admit that YOU did not make payments on the

17

LOAN to any entity other than WELLS FARGO."

18

Decl. I") Ex. A.

19

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the

20

truth of RFA 5 and, on that basis, denies the RFA."

21

is inadequate for two reasons.

22

required by Rule 36(a)(4), that Mr. Subramani made a reasonable

23

inquiry before denying sufficient knowledge and information to

24

respond.

25

"certainly has personal knowledge of who he made payments to on the

26

loan."

27

matter, specifically deny it, "or state in detail why the answering

28

party cannot truthfully admit or deny it."

ECF No. 53-2 ("Grewal

Mr. Subramani responded: "Plaintiff is without
This response

First, it does not indicate, as

Second, as Wells Fargo points out, Mr. Subramani
RFA Mot. at 3.

Mr. Subramani either needs to admit to this

3

Fed. R. Civ. P.

1

36(a)(4) (emphasis added).

2

that Mr. Subramani is very likely to have, Mr. Subramani must

3

respond in much more detail and explain why he does not have that

4

information.

5

inquiry and lacks information on this matter is insufficient; he

6

must explain in detail why he cannot truthfully admit or deny this

7

request for admission.

8

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

9

When the question asks for information

A bare assertion that he performed a reasonable

RFA number 8 asks Mr. Subramani to "Admit that WELLS FARGO
never promised that the LOAN would not be SECURITIZED."

Grewal

10

Decl. I Ex. A.

Mr. Subramani responded, "Plaintiff is without

11

sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the

12

truth of RFA 8 and, on that basis, denies the RFA."

13

For the same reasons described above, Mr. Subramani's response is

14

insufficient.

15

securitization of the loan is critical.

16

Complaint ("SAC") alleges that Wells Fargo transferred Mr.

17

Subramani's mortgage loan to a securitization trust in violation of

18

California law.

19

requests admission of a matter about which Mr. Subramani is

20

eminently likely to have information and which forms a crucial part

21

of one of his claims against Defendants.

22

or deny the request, or explain in detail why he cannot do so.

Id. Ex. C.

In this case, the circumstances surrounding the
The Second Amended

ECF NO. 35 ("SAC") ¶¶ 14-15.

This RFA therefore

Mr. Subramani must admit

23

Finally, RFA number 9 asks Mr. Subramani to "Admit that

24

SECURITIZATION did not change the PAYMENT SCHEDULE for the LOAN."

25

Mr. Subramani answered, "Plaintiff is without sufficient knowledge

26

or information to form a belief as to the truth of RFA 9 and, on

27

that basis, denies the RFA."

28

this response is insufficient.

Once again, and for the same reasons,
Mr. Subramani must admit or deny
4

1

the request, or explain in detail why he cannot do so.

Wells

2

Fargo's motion to compel is GRANTED with respect to request for

3

admission numbers 5, 8, and 9.

4

B.

5

Rule 33 permits a party to "serve on any other party no more

Interrogatories

"Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be

8

answered separately and fully in writing under oath."

9

United States District Court

than 25 written interrogatories . . . ."

7

For the Northern District of California

6

Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(1).

P. 33(b)(3).

Fed. R. Civ.

Rule 37 permits a party to move to compel an answer

10

if a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule

11

33.

12

interrogatories are evasive and incomplete, for various reasons.

13

Wells Fargo argues that Mr. Subramani's responses to all 21

1.

Interrogatory Numbers 1, 3, 5, 15, and 21

14

First, in interrogatory numbers 1, 3, 5, 15, and 21, Wells

15

Fargo asked Mr. Subramani to state all facts supporting certain

16

contentions in the SAC.

17

Mr. Subramani's answers are virtually identical and entirely devoid

18

of factual information.

19

on the grounds that answering would require him to reveal trial

20

preparation material and privileged communications.

21

then proceeds to state that the subject matter of the interrogatory

22

will be addressed in an expert report that he will produce to Wells

23

Fargo or that answers can be "ascertained by a review of records

24

which Plaintiff will make available for Wells Fargo's inspection."

25

Grewal Decl. II Ex. D.

26

ECF No. 54-2 ("Grewal Decl. II") Ex. B.
In response to each question, he objects
Mr. Subramani

As a general matter, interrogatories directing a plaintiff to

27

state facts supporting contentions in his complaint are "entirely

28

appropriate."

In re Savitt/Adler Litig., 176 F.R.D. 44, 48
5

Francisco, 226 F.R.D. 615, 618 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (granting motion to

3

compel answers to interrogatories asking plaintiff to state all

4

facts supporting a claim); Black Hills Molding, Inc. v. Brandom

5

Holdings, LLC, 295 F.R.D. 403, 413 (D.S.D. 2013) (providing a

6

detailed discussion of so-called "contention interrogatories").

7

in In re Savitt/Adler, "[t]he interrogatories seek facts, not

8

documents or tangible objects, and the proper form of response is a

9

United States District Court

(N.D.N.Y. 1997); see also Tennison v. City & Cnty. of San

2

For the Northern District of California

1

narrative answer, not a reference to documents or objects where the

10

answers might be found."

11

Subramani's objections to these interrogatories are overruled, and

12

Wells Fargo's motion is GRANTED with respect to interrogatory

13

numbers 1, 3, 5, 15, and 21.

14
15

2.

176 F.R.D. at 48.

As

Accordingly, Mr.

Interrogatory Numbers 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, and 19

Interrogatory numbers 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, and 19 are identical

16

to those discussed above: they ask Mr. Subramani to state all facts

17

supporting certain contentions in the complaint.

18

each, Mr. Subramani objects "on the ground that the allegations set

19

forth in [the relevant paragraphs] of the Second Amended Complaint

20

speak for themselves."

21

further directs Wells Fargo to certain paragraphs of the SAC.

Grewal Decl. II Ex. D.

In response to

Mr. Subramani

22

As discussed above, these questions are entirely appropriate,

23

and they require responses in the form of a narrative answer, "not

24

a reference to documents or objects where the answers might be

25

found."

26

in the SAC speak for themselves and there are no additional

27

supporting facts, Mr. Subramani may say so.

28

only supporting facts are in the SAC, Mr. Subramani should list

In re Savitt/Adler, 176 F.R.D. at 48.

6

If the contentions

Alternatively, if the

1

those facts, rather than refer Wells Fargo to other paragraphs in

2

the SAC.

3

interrogatory numbers 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, and 19.

4

Wells Fargo's motion is GRANTED with respect to

3.

Document Identifications

Interrogatory numbers 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20

5

to, evidencing, or supporting the facts identified" in response to

8

Wells Fargo's contention interrogatories.

9

United States District Court

ask Mr. Subramani to identify all documents "referring to, relating

7

For the Northern District of California

6

To each question, Mr. Subramani responded by objecting that the

10

request was unduly burdensome or that it requires him to reveal

11

trial preparation material.

12

would "make available for Wells Fargo's review all responsive

13

documents."

Grewal Decl. II Ex. B.

Mr. Subramani further answered that he

Grewal Decl. II Ex. D.

14

Generally speaking, an interrogatory which requests the

15

identification of documents relating to facts may be served on a

16

party.

17

Because Mr. Subramani refused to answer the contention

18

interrogatories, it is impossible for the Court to determine the

19

scope of the information sought and whether responding might be

20

unduly burdensome.

21

with respect to the contention interrogatories, the Court GRANTS

22

Wells Fargo's motion with respect to the document identification

23

interrogatories as well.

24

adequately answering the contention interrogatories, that

25

identifying the relevant documents is still unduly burdensome, he

26

may say so.

27

responses, not merely a bare assertion.

28

///

Smith v. Cafe Asia, 256 F.R.D. 247, 255 (D.D.C. 2009).

Because the Court granted Wells Fargo's motion

If Mr. Subramani honestly believes, after

But he must provide a specific basis for those

7

1
2

4.

Interrogatory Number 21

Interrogatory number 21 asked Mr. Subramani to "IDENTIFY the

3

'true beneficiary' as alleged in the COMPLAINT."

4

Ex. B.

Mr. Subramani responded:

5

Plaintiff objects to Interrogatory 21 on the
ground that it requires Plaintiff to reveal
trial preparation material and communications
between Plaintiff's attorneys and Plaintiff's
expert
witness
which
are
protected
from
disclosure.
By
way
of
further
response
Plaintiff states that the subject matter of
Interrogatory 21 will be addressed in the
report of Plaintiff's expert which shall be
produced at least 90 days in advance of trial.

6
7
8

United States District Court

9
For the Northern District of California

Grewal Decl. II

10
11

Grewal Decl. II Ex. D.

Not only was Mr. Subramani's answer

12

completely inadequate and nonresponsive, it is inconceivable to the

13

Court that Mr. Subramani or his attorney believed this answer to be

14

anywhere close to acceptable.

15

and requested only one very specific piece of clarifying

16

information about the SAC.

17

respect to interrogatory number 21.

The question was narrowly tailored

Wells Fargo's motion is GRANTED with

18

C.

19

Rule 37 states that the Court must, if granting a motion to

Sanctions

20

compel, "after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party

21

or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or

22

attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's

23

reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including

24

attorney's fees."

25

provides for several circumstances in which the Court may decline

26

to sanction the party whose conduct necessitated the motion.

27

Accordingly, Wells Fargo seeks sanctions in connection with these

28

motions.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).

That Rule also
Id.

The Court is sympathetic to Wells Fargo's request for
8

responses indicate a lack of good faith in his effort to answer the

3

requests for admission and interrogatories.

4

Rule 7-8 requires that "[a]ny motion for sanctions, regardless of

5

the sources of authority invoked, must . . . be separately filed

6

and the date for hearing must be set in conformance with Civil L.R.

7

7-2."

8

2006 WL 3462661, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2006) (denying request

9

United States District Court

sanctions, given that Mr. Subramani's completely inadequate

2

For the Northern District of California

1

for sanctions brought in connection with motion to compel because

See also

However, Civil Local

Yee v. Ventus Capital Servs., No. C05-03097(RS),

10

sanctions request was not separately filed).

11

Fargo's request for sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and

12

Wells Fargo may notice a separate motion for sanctions in a manner

13

consistent with the Civil Local Rules.

14

///

15

///

16

///

17

///

18

///

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
9

Accordingly, Wells

1
2

IV.

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant Wells Fargo Bank,

is hereby ORDERED to serve upon Wells Fargo complete answers to

5

Wells Fargo's interrogatories and requests for admission within

6

fourteen (14) days of the signature date of this order.

7

respond adequately will result in dismissal of this action.

8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v) (permitting the Court to dismiss an

9

United States District Court

N.A.'s motions to compel are GRANTED.

4

For the Northern District of California

3

action in whole or in part for failure to obey a discovery order).

10

Plaintiff Karthik Subramani

Failure to
See

Wells Fargo's request for sanctions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14
15

Dated: December 18, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10