Colony Insurance Company v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company et al

Filing 62

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/30/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

COLONY INSURANCE COMPANY,

7

Plaintiff,

9
10

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

v.

8

Case No. 18-cv-00519-SI

Re: Dkt. Nos. 60, 61
MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al.,
Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Plaintiff Colony Insurance Company and defendant Mt. Hawley Insurance Company have

13

submitted a discovery dispute to the Court for resolution. The dispute concerns defendant’s

14

responses to requests for admissions (“RFAs”) asking whether defendant “obtained” various

15

documents after denying the insurance claim, and related interrogatories asking for facts

16

supporting every denial. It appears from the parties’ filings that plaintiff believes that defendant

17

should have admitted the RFAs instead of denying them, and that plaintiff takes issue with how

18

defendant has interpreted “obtained” in both responding to the RFAs and the related

19

interrogatories.1

20

statements made by defense counsel in which defense counsel admitted that the documents were

21

“obtained” after the denial of the claim.

Plaintiff asserts that defendant’s discovery responses are inconsistent with

22

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a) provides that “[a] party may serve on any other party

23

a written request to admit . . . the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to:

24

(A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either . . . .” Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

25

36(a)(1)(A). Rule 36 further provides, “If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically

26
27
28

1

The parties did not provide the Court with a copy of the discovery requests and
responses. Plaintiff states that defendant “reinterpreted” “obtained” to mean reviewing certain
documents online as opposed to physically having the documents.

1

deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny. A denial must

2

fairly respond to the substance of the matter; and when good faith requires that a party qualify an

3

answer or deny only part of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and qualify or

4

deny the rest. . . .” Id. at 36(a)(4). “[A]n evasive denial one that does not ‘specifically deny the

5

matter,’ or a response that does not set forth ‘in detail’ the reasons why the answering party cannot

6

truthfully admit or deny the matter, may be deemed an admission.” Asea, Inc. v. Southern Pacific

7

Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1245 (9th Cir. 1982) (citation omitted).
It is unclear to the Court what relief plaintiff is seeking. Defendant interprets plaintiff’s

9

filing as a request for leave to file a motion to compel defendant to change its responses to the

10

RFAs from denials to admissions. If that is the relief plaintiff seeks, the request is DENIED. “A

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

proper response to a Request for Admission can be an admission or denial. When a matter is

12

completely denied, the truth of the matter must be proved at trial. That Plaintiff disagrees with the

13

response is not grounds to compel a different response.” Noble v. Adams, No. CV F 03-5407 AWI

14

SMS P, 2006 WL 3028543, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2006); see also Michael v. Wes Banco Bank,

15

Inc., No. CIVA 5:04CV46, 2006 WL 1705935, at *2 (W.D. Va. June 16, 2006) (“[A]

16

consideration of ‘sufficiency’ [of a response to an RFA] should focus on the specificity of the

17

response and not on whether the response was accurate.”). If plaintiff believes that defendant has

18

provided untruthful answers about what documents the insurance company relied on when it

19

denied the claim, plaintiff can propound additional discovery, including taking depositions, to

20

explore that issue.

21

However, if plaintiff contends that defendant’s RFA answers do not comply with the

22

requirements of Rule 36, plaintiff may file a motion to compel amended answers. If plaintiff

23

wishes to file a motion to compel, plaintiff must first meet and confer with defendant regarding the

24

specific ways in which plaintiff contends defendant’s answers do not comply with the rules, and

25

plaintiff must attach a copy of the discovery requests and responses to the motion to compel.

26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 30, 2018

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
2