Nelson v. Hartford Life Insurance Company
Filing
69
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting in part 57 Motion to Deem Objections Waived. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2014)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
DESSIE R. NELSON,
12
13
No. C-13-04196 CRB (DMR)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART THIRD
PARTY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
DEEM OBJECTIONS WAIVED AND
REQUESTING SANCTIONS [DOCKET
NO. 57]
Plaintiff(s),
v.
14
HARTFORD LIFE INSURANCE CO.,
15
Defendant(s).
___________________________________/
16
17
Before the court is Third Party Plaintiff Hartford Life Insurance Co.’s (“Hartford”) motion to
18
deem Third Party Defendant Juliana James’s objections to Hartford’s interrogatories waived.
19
[Docket No. 57.] The court held a hearing on the matter on September 25, 2014. For the following
20
reasons, the court grants Hartford’s motion to deem the objections waived and denies the request for
21
sanctions.
22
23
I. Discussion
Hartford served its first set of interrogatories on James on April 1, 2014. Accordingly, her
24
responses and/or objections were due on May 5, 2014. (Hazlehurst Decl., Aug. 13, 2014, ¶ 2 Ex. A.)
25
On May 9, 2014, after the responses were due, James’s counsel requested an extension to June 1,
26
2014 to serve responses. Harford’s counsel agreed to the extension, which the parties confirmed by
27
email. (Hazlehurst Decl. ¶ 3 Ex. B.) James did not serve her interrogatory responses by June 1,
28
2014, nor did her counsel request an additional extension of time. On June 5, 2014, in response to
1
Hartford’s inquiries, James’s counsel stated that Hartford would receive the responses by June 9 or
2
10, 2014. Harford’s counsel responded that all objections to the interrogatories had been waived due
3
to the failure to serve timely responses. (Hazlehurst Decl. ¶ 4 Ex. C.)
4
James finally served her interrogatory responses on Hartford on June 10, 2014. The
5
responses included objections to seven of the fifteen interrogatories even though the responses were
6
late. (Hazlehurst Decl. Ex. D (Interrogatory Responses).) Hartford subsequently asked James to
7
withdraw her objections on the grounds that they had been waived by James’s late responses. James
8
refused. (Hazlehurst Decl. ¶¶ 6, 7.)
set of interrogatories waived and requested sanctions. James’s opposition to the motion was due on
11
For the Northern District of California
On August 13, 2014, Hartford filed the present motion to deem James’s objections to its first
10
United States District Court
9
August 27, 2014 (see Docket No. 62), but she did not file anything by that date. On September 15,
12
2014, the court received a letter from James’s counsel, stating that Hartford’s motion should be
13
denied because James’s objections “were and are inconsequential” and asserting that each
14
interrogatory was completely and fully answered. [Docket No. 67.]
15
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33 provides that a party must serve responses and any
16
objections to interrogatories within 30 days after being served with the discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P.
17
33(b)(2). Failure to timely respond to discovery requests generally constitutes a waiver of any
18
objections thereto. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4) (“[a]ny ground [for objecting to an interrogatory]
19
not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure.”);
20
Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (“failure to object to discovery
21
requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection.”). Pursuant to Rule 37, a
22
party may move for an order compelling responses to discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B). For
23
purposes of this rule, “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a
24
failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4). If the court grants the motion, it
25
shall require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion to pay the moving party’s reasonable
26
expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorneys’ fees, unless the failure to respond was
27
substantially justified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A).
28
2
1
Here, it is undisputed that James served her responses to interrogatories on June 10, 2014,
2
nine days after they were due pursuant to the parties’ agreement. Further, James has not shown
3
good cause for her failure to timely serve responses. Accordingly, all objections to the
4
interrogatories are waived, as James’s counsel conceded at the hearing. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4)
5
(“[a]ny ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses
6
the failure”).
7
As to the completeness of the responses, James’s counsel represented at the hearing that
8
despite her objections, James’s responses to the interrogatories were complete and included all
9
responsive information known to James as of the date of the responses; in other words, the
substantive responses to the interrogatories would be the same in the absence of any objections.
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
Hartford’s counsel conceded that he believed the responses were complete, notwithstanding the
12
asserted objections. Accordingly, as the responses were complete as of the date they were served,
13
the court concludes that James’s responses were not “evasive or incomplete” pursuant to Rule
14
37(a)(4), and the sanctions provision of Rule 37(a)(5)(A) does not apply. Therefore, Hartford’s
15
request for sanctions is denied. At the hearing, Hartford asked the court to impose sanctions
16
pursuant to its inherent authority, but as Hartford only sought Rule 37 sanctions in its motion, the
17
court declines to consider this request. However, the court expresses concern regarding both the
18
conduct which necessitated this motion, which could have been avoided had counsel agreed to
19
withdraw the untimely objections upon Hartford’s request, as well as the fact that James’s response
20
to the motion was itself untimely. By no later than October 9, 2014, James shall serve supplemental
21
responses to Hartford’s first set of interrogatories that do not include any objections and that reflect
22
any new, responsive information learned through discovery. Going forward, upon learning new
23
information in the course of discovery that is responsive to the interrogatories, James shall
24
supplement her responses within two weeks of learning such information, in compliance with her
25
obligations under Rule 26. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e) (“party who has . . . responded to an
26
interrogatory . . . must supplement or correct its disclosure or response . . . in a timely manner if the
27
party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is incomplete or incorrect”).
28
II. Conclusion
3
interrogatories waived is granted. Hartford’s request for sanctions is denied.
5
6
Dated: September 29, 2014
7
NO
DONNA M. RYU
M. Ryu
United StateseMagistrate Judge
Donna
g
8
RT
10
11
For the Northern District of California
Jud
ER
H
9
United States District Court
D
RDERE
OO
IT IS S
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
R NIA
UNIT
ED
S
IT IS SO ORDERED.
RT
U
O
4
S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA
FO
3
LI
2
For the foregoing reasons, Hartford’s motion to deem James’s objections to its first set of
A
1
N
D IS T IC T
R
OF
C
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?