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