Fay Avenue Properties, LLC. et al v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al

Filing 114

ORDER Regarding Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute Regarding La Jolla Spa MD, Inc.'s Responses to Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents and Requests for Admission; ORDER Regarding Joint Statement of Discovery Dispute Regarding Trustee of Fay Avenue Properties LLC's Bankruptcy Estate's Responses to Interrogatories. Signed by Magistrate Judge William V. Gallo on 7/1/2014. (srm)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
)
v.
)
)
TRAVELERS PROPERTY
)
CASUALTY COMPANY OF
)
AMERICA,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
FAY AVENUE PROPERTIES,
LLC, et al.,

Civil No.11-2389-GPC(WVG)
ORDER REGARDING JOINT
STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY
DISPUTE REGARDING LA
JOLLA SPA MD, INC.’S
RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES, REQUESTS
FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND REQUESTS
FOR ADMISSION
ORDER REGARDING JOINT
STATEMENT OF DISCOVERY
DISPUTE REGARDING TRUSTEE
OF FAY AVENUE PROPERTIES
LLC’S BANKRUPTCY ESTATE’S
RESPONSES TO
INTERROGATORIES

21
22

On June 13, 2014, Plaintiffs Trustee of Fay Avenue

23

Properties Bankruptcy Estate (“Fay Ave”), and La Jolla Spa

24

MD,

25

Casualty Company of America (“Defendant”) filed Joint

26

Statements for Determination of Discovery Disputes. One

27

Joint Statement involves LJ Spa’s Responses to Defendant’s

28

Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, and

Inc.

(“LJ

Spa”)

and

Defendant

1

Travelers

Property

11cv2389

1

Requests for Admission. The other Joint Statement involves

2

Fay Ave’s Responses to Defendant’s Interrogatories. The

3

Court, having reviewed the Joint Statements,

4

ties cited therein, the discovery requests and the re-

5

sponses thereto, and the documents attached to the Joint

6

Statements, and GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, HEREBY ORDERS as

7

follows:

8

I

9

the authori-

DISCUSSION

10

A. Waiver of Discovery Objections

11

The Court observes that most of Fay Ave’s and LJ

12

Spa’s responses to Defendant’s discovery requests state

13

objections such as vague, ambiguous, overbroad, unduly

14

burdensome, oppressive as to scope and time, compound,

15

etc.

16

attorney-client

17

Further, the responses contain language stating “subject

18

to

19

responds as follows:,” and “(Plaintiff) will produce non-

20

privileged responsive documents within its custody and

21

control.”

Additionally,

and

many

privilege

without

waiving

of

the

and

these

responses

work

invoke

product

objections,

the

doctrine.

(Plaintiff)

22

Conditional responses and/or the purported reserva-

23

tion of rights by Plaintiffs is improper and ultimately

24

has the effect of waiving Plaintiffs’ objections to the

25

discovery requests. Sprint Communications Co. v. Comcast

26

Cable Communications, LLC, 2014 WL 545544 at *2 (D. KS

27

2014)(“Sprint

28

2014)(“Sprint II”).

I”),

modified

2

2014

WL

569963

(D.

KS

11cv2389

The Court recognizes that it is common practice

1
2

among

attorneys

to

3

asserting objections and then responding to the discovery

4

requests

5

objections. This practice is confusing and misleading.

6

Moreover, it has no basis in the Federal Rules of Civil

7

Procedure. Sprint I, 2014 WL 545544 at *2.

“subject

respond

to”

to

and/or

discovery

“without

requests

waiving”

by

their

8

The responses are confusing and misleading because,

9

for example, when a party responds to an interrogatory

10

that is “subject to” and “without waiving its objections,”

11

the propounder of the interrogatory is “left guessing as

12

to whether the responding party has fully or only par-

13

tially responded to the interrogatory.” Estridge v. Target

14

Corp., 2012 WL 527051 at *1-2 (S.D. FL 2012). Similarly,

15

with respect to requests for production of documents, a

16

response “subject to” and “without waiving objections,”

17

leaves the requesting party to guess whether the producing

18

party has produced all responsive documents, or only some

19

responsive documents and withheld others on the basis of

20

the objections. Sprint I, 2014 WL 545544 at *2, Rodriguez

21

v.

22

2011)(Defendant’s objections to requests for production of

23

documents did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil

24

Procedure

25

production of documents did not clearly state that the

26

documents had already been produced, or exist, but are not

27

being withheld based on other interposed objections.)

Simmons,

2011

because

WL

the

1322003

responses

at

to

*7

the

(E.D.

Cal.

requests

for

28

3

11cv2389

1

“If Defendants do have responsive documents, but

2

wish to withhold them on privacy (or privilege) grounds,

3

Plaintiff should be made aware of this fact and the

4

parties should continue their meet and confer obligations

5

to ensure redaction, a protective order, in camera review,

6

or other (privilege or) privacy-guarding measures are

7

implemented to properly balance the need for discovery

8

against the need for (privilege or) privacy.” Id. at *7,

9

fn. 9 (citation omitted)(emphasis in original).
Moreover, when a party responds to a request for

10
11

production

12

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34: (1) serve an objection

13

to the requests as a whole, [Federal Rule of Civil Proce-

14

dure 34(b)(2)(B)], or (2) serve an “objection to part of

15

the request, provided it specifies the part to which it

16

objects and respond to the non-objectionable portions,

17

[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(b)(2)(C)] or (3) serve

18

a response that says that all responsive documents will be

19

produced. What a party can not do is combine its objec-

20

tions into a partial response without any indication that

21

the response was actually a partial response. Haeger v.

22

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 906 F.Supp 2d 938, 976 (D. AZ

23

2012).

24

of

documents,

it

has

three

options

under

Further, conditional responses to discovery requests

25

violate

Federal

26

(g)(1)(B)(i)-(iii)

27

requests

28

consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “not

to

Rule

certify

of

Civil

requires
that

the

4

Procedure

responders
discovery

26.
to

Rule

26

discovery

responses

are

11cv2389

1

imposed

for

any

improper

purpose,”

and

are

“neither

2

unreasonable nor unduly burdensome.” Moreover, the 1983

3

Committee comments to Rule 26(g) state that “Rule 26

4

imposes an affirmative duty to engage in pretrial discov-

5

ery in a responsible manner that is consistent with the

6

spirit and purposes of Rule 26 through 37.” Providing

7

conditional responses to discovery requests is improper.

8

Sprint II, 2014 WL 1569963 at *3.

9

Consequently, since Plaintiffs’ responses to discov-

10

ery requests that are “subject to” and “without waiving

11

objections,” are improper, the objections are deem waived

12

and

13

Estridge, 2012 WL 527051 at *2 ,[citing Tardif v. People

14

for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, 2011 WL 1627165 at

15

*2 (M.D. FL 2011), Pepperwood of Naples Condominium Assn.

16

v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 2011 WL 4382104 at *4-

17

5 (M.D. FL 2011), Consumer Elecs. Assn. v. Compras And

18

Buys Magazine, Inc., 2008 WL 4327253 at *3 (S.D. FL

19

2008)(“subject

20

“preserve... nothing and serve... only to waste the time

21

and resources of both the Parties and the Court. Further,

22

such practice leaves the requesting party uncertain as to

23

whether the question has actually been fully answered or

24

whether portion of the question has been answered.”)

the

response

to”

to

and

the

discovery

“without

request

waiving

stands.

objections”

25

B. Reference To Documents In Discovery Requests

26

A party may answer an interrogatory by specifying

27

records from which the answer may be obtained and by

28

making the records available for inspection. Federal Rule
5

11cv2389

1

of Civil Procedure 33(d)(2). But the records must be

2

specified “in sufficient detail to enable the interrogat-

3

ing party to locate and identify them as readily as the

4

responding party could.” Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

5

33(d)(1). Responses to interrogatories that do not specify

6

where in the records the answers could be found do not

7

comply with Rule 33(d)(1). Rule 33 was amended in 1980 “to

8

make clear that a responding party has the duty to spec-

9

ify, by category and location, the records from which the

10

answers to the interrogatories can be derived.” Rainbow

11

Pioneer No. 44-18-04A v. Hawaii Nevada Inv. Co., 711 F.2d

12

902, 906 (9th Cir. 1983)[discussing former Federal Rule of

13

Civil Procedure 33(c)]. West v. Ultimate Metals Co., 2014

14

WL 466795 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2014), Tourgeman v. Collins

15

Financial Services, Inc., 2010 WL 2181416 at *6 (S.D. Cal.

16

2010). Former Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(c) is the

17

same as the current Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d).

18

Cambridge Electronics Corp. v. MGA Electronics, 227 F.R.D.

19

313, 323, (C.D. Cal. 2004).

20

A party seeking damages must timely disclose its

21

theory of damages as well as its computation of those

22

damages. Brighton Collectibles, Inc. v. RK Texas Leather

23

Mfg.,

24

2013).“‘Computation’

25

merely setting forth a lump sum amount. While the computa-

26

tion of damages does not need to be detailed early in the

27

case

28

supplement

2013

prior

WL

4716210

at

contemplates

to

relevant

its

initial

*3
some

discovery,
damage
6

the

(S.D.

Cal.

analysis

beyond

plaintiff

computation

to

must

reflect
11cv2389

1

information obtained during discovery.” Id. at *3, citing

2

City & County of San Francisco v. Tutor-Saliba Corp., 218

3

F.R.D. 219, 221-222 (N.D. Cal. 2003). Further, the service

4

of expert witness’ reports does not excuse a litigant from

5

his/her other discovery obligations, such as a computation

6

of damages. Shakespear v. Wal-Mart Stores, 2013 WL 6498898

7

at *4 (D. NV 2013). Future expert analysis does not

8

relieve a litigant of its obligation to provide informa-

9

tion that is reasonably available to it regarding its

10

alleged damages. Frontline Medical Assoc. v. Coventry

11

Health Care, 263 F.R.D. 567, 570 (C.D. Cal. 2009). There-

12

fore,

13

requests, particularly as to Plaintiffs’ responses that

14

state that expert discovery is needed to respond to the

15

discovery requests, are insufficient.

Plaintiffs’

responses

to

Defendant’s

discovery

16

The Court observes that many of Fay Ave’s and LJ

17

Spa’s responses to Defendant’s discovery requests refer to

18

documents

19

responses that refer to documents are inadequate because

20

they

21

Defendant to locate and identify the documents to which

22

Plaintiffs refer. Many of Defendant’s requests refer to

23

Plaintiff’s

24

allegedly sustained. Plaintiffs must provide to Defendant

25

a computation of the damages they claim in this litiga-

26

tion, and must specifically identify the documents they

27

used to arrive at the computation of damages.

produced

fail

to

in

specify

this

in

litigation.

sufficient

substantiation

of

the

However,

detail

damages

to

the

enable

they

have

28

7

11cv2389

1

C. Assertion of Privileges

2

The Court observes that many of Fay Ave’s and LJ

3

Spa’s responses to Defendant’s discovery requests assert

4

that the requests invade the attorney-client privilege,

5

work product or are “objectionable.” To the extent that

6

the responses invoke a privilege, work product, or are

7

“objectionable,” Plaintiffs are required to provide to

8

Defendant a privilege log that lists each document with-

9

held from production. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

10

26(b)(5)(A)(i)-(ii). A proper assertion of of privilege,

11

work product, or that the document is “objectionable,”

12

must contain the following for each document, communica-

13

tion or information withheld:

14

(1) Date of the creation of the document;

15

(2) Author;

16

(3) Primary addressee(s) [and the relationship of

17

that person(s) to the client and/or author of the

18

document];

19

(4) Secondary addressee(s), persons who received

20

copies of the document and the recipient [and the rela-

21

tionship of that person(s) to the client and/or author of

22

the document];

23

(5) Type of document;

24

(6) Client (party asserting the privilege)

25

(7) Attorneys (with an indication of who the attor-

26
27
28

ney represents);
(8) Subject matter of the document or privileged
communication;
8

11cv2389

1

(9) Purpose of the document or privileged communica-

2

tion (basis for the legal claim of privilege, work product

3

or objection to production);

4

(10) Whether the document, communication or objec-

5

tion is attorney-client privilege, work product, or some

6

other basis;
(11) Identify each document by number.1/

7
8

Miller v. Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 302 (C.D. Cal. 1992),

9

Martin v. Evans, 2012 WL 1894219 at *5 (N.D. Cal. 2012),

10

Del Campo v. American Corrective Counseling Services, 2007

11

WL 4287335 at *4 (N.D. Cal. 2007).
II

12

COURT’S RULINGS ON DISPUTES DISCOVERY REQUESTS

13
14

A. Fay Ave’s Responses

15

Request for Production of Documents No. 28

16

Pursuant to the discussion at Section I.A. of this

17

Order, Fay Ave’s objections are waived. To the extent that

18

Fay

19

attorney-client privilege, work product, or for any other

20

reason, Fay Ave shall produce to Defendant a privilege

21

log. See Sprint II, 2014 WL 1569963 at *3. If Fay Ave is

22

not withholding any information protected by the attorney-

23

client privilege, work product, or for any other reason,

24

it shall serve on Defendant a supplemental response so

25

stating. Further, pursuant to Section I.B. of this Order,

26

Fay

27

Request that specifies in sufficient detail to enable

Ave

Ave

is

withholding

shall

serve

a

information

supplemental

protected

response

by

to

the

this

28
1/

No. 11 was added by this Court.

9

11cv2389

1

Defendant to locate and identify the documents which are

2

responsive to this Request and to which Fay Avenue refers.

3

In the event the documents to which Fay Avenue refers does

4

not sufficiently respond to this Request, Fay Avenue is

5

directed to supplement its response to comply with this

6

Order. In addition, Fay Ave shall include in its supple-

7

mental response its computation of the damages referred to

8

in the Request.
Request for Production of Documents No. 29

9
10

The Response is sufficient because Fay Ave stated

11

that it alone sustained the entire amount of loss noted in

12

property losses.

13

Request for Production of Documents No. 30

14

Pursuant to the discussion at Section I.A. of this

15

Order, Fay Ave’s objections are waived. To the extent that

16

Fay

17

attorney-client privilege, work product, or for any other

18

reason, Fay Ave shall produce to Defendant a privilege

19

log. See Sprint II, 2014 WL 1569963 at *3. If Fay Ave is

20

not withholding any information protected by the attorney-

21

client privilege, work product, or for any other reason,

22

it shall serve on Defendant a supplemental response so

23

stating. Further, pursuant to Section I.B. of this Order,

24

Fay

25

Request that specifies in sufficient detail to enable

26

Defendant to locate and identify the documents which are

27

responsive to this Request and to which Fay Avenue refers.

28

In the event the documents to which Fay Avenue refers does

Ave

Ave

is

withholding

shall

serve

a

information

supplemental

10

protected

response

by

to

the

this

11cv2389

1

not sufficiently respond to this Request, Fay Avenue is

2

directed to supplement its response to comply with this

3

Order. In addition, Fay Ave shall include in its supple-

4

mental response its computation of the damages referred to

5

in the Request.

6

Request for Production of Documents No. 31

7

Pursuant to the discussion at Section I.A. of this

8

Order, Fay Ave’s objections are waived. To the extent that

9

Fay

Ave

is

withholding

information

protected

by

the

10

attorney-client privilege, work product, or for any other

11

reason, Fay Ave shall produce to Defendant a privilege

12

log. See Sprint II, 2014 WL 1569963 at *3. If Fay Ave is

13

not withholding any information protected by the attorney-

14

client privilege, work product, or for any other reason,

15

it shall serve on Defendant a supplemental response so

16

stating. Further, pursuant to Section I.B. of this Order,

17

Fay

18

Request that specifies in sufficient detail to enable

19

Defendant to locate and identify the documents which are

20

responsive to this Request and to which Fay Avenue refers.

21

In the event the documents to which Fay Avenue refers does

22

not sufficiently respond to this Request, Fay Avenue is

23

directed to supplement its response to comply with this

24

Order. In addition, Fay Ave shall include in its supple-

25

mental response its computation of the damages referred to

26

in the Request.

Ave

shall

serve

a

supplemental

response

to

this

27
28

11

11cv2389

1

Request for Production of Documents No. 32

2

The Response is sufficient because Fay Ave stated

3

that it alone sustained the entire amount of loss noted in

4

business interruption loss.

5

Request for Production of Documents No. 33

6

Pursuant to the discussion at Section I.A. of this

7

Order, Fay Ave’s objections are waived. To the extent that

8

Fay

9

attorney-client privilege, work product, or for any other

10

reason, Fay Ave shall produce to Defendant a privilege

11

log. See Sprint II, 2014 WL 1569963 at *3. If Fay Ave is

12

not withholding any information protected by the attorney-

13

client privilege, work product, or for any other reason,

14

it shall serve on Defendant a supplemental response so

15

stating. Further, pursuant to Section I.B. of this Order,

16

Fay

17

Request that specifies in sufficient detail to enable

18

Defendant to locate and identify the documents which are

19

responsive to this Request and to which Fay Avenue refers.

20

In the event the documents to which Fay Ave refers do not

21

sufficiently respond to this Request, Fay Ave is directed

22

to supplement its response to comply with this Order. In

23

addition,

24

response its computation of the damages referred to in the

25

Request.

Ave

Ave

is

withholding

shall

Fay

serve

Ave

a

information

supplemental

shall

include

in

protected

response

its

by

to

the

this

supplemental

26

B. LJ Spa’s Responses

27

Interrogatory No. 28

28

The Response is not responsive to the Interrogatory.
12

11cv2389

1

Pursuant to Section I.A. of this Order, LJ Spa’s objec-

2

tions are waived. Pursuant to Section I.B. of this Order,

3

LJ Spa shall serve a supplemental response to this Inter-

4

rogatory that specifies in sufficient detail to enable

5

Defendant to locate and identify the documents which are

6

responsive to this Interrogatory and to which LJ Spa

7

refers. In the event the documents to which Fay Ave refers

8

do not sufficiently respond to this Interrogatory, Fay Ave

9

is directed to supplement its response to comply with this

10

Order.

11

Interrogatory No. 29

12

The Response is not responsive to the Interrogatory.

13

Pursuant to Section I.A. of this Order, LJ Spa’s objec-

14

tions are waived. Pursuant to Section I.B. of this Order,

15

LJ Spa shall serve a supplemental response to this Inter-

16

rogatory that specifies in sufficient detail to enable

17

Defendant to locate and identify the documents which are

18

responsive to this Interrogatory and to which LJ Spa

19

refers. In the event the documents to which Fay Ave refers

20

do not sufficiently respond to this Interrogatory, Fay Ave

21

is directed to supplement its response to comply with this

22

Order.

23

Interrogatory No. 30

24

The Response is not responsive to the Interrogatory.

25

Pursuant to Section I.A. of this Order, LJ Spa’s objec-

26

tions are waived. Pursuant to Section I.B. of this Order,

27

LJ Spa shall serve a supplemental response to this Inter-

28

rogatory that specifies in sufficient detail to enable
13

11cv2389

1

Defendant to locate and identify the documents which are

2

responsive to this Interrogatory and to which LJ Spa

3

refers. In the event the documents to which Fay Ave refers

4

do not sufficiently respond to this Interrogatory, Fay Ave

5

is directed to supplement its response to comply with this

6

Order.

7

Interrogatory No. 31

8

The Response is not responsive to the Interrogatory.

9

Pursuant to Section I.A. of this Order, LJ Spa’s objec-

10

tions are waived. Pursuant to Section I.B. of this Order,

11

LJ Spa shall serve a supplemental response to this Inter-

12

rogatory that specifies in sufficient detail to enable

13

Defendant to locate and identify the documents which are

14

responsive to this Interrogatory and to which LJ Spa

15

refers. In the event the documents to which Fay Ave refers

16

do not sufficiently respond to this Interrogatory, Fay Ave

17

is directed to supplement its response to comply with this

18

Order.

19

Interrogatory No. 33

20

The Response is not responsive to the Interrogatory.

21

Pursuant to Section I.A. of this Order, LJ Spa’s objec-

22

tions are waived. To the extent LJ Spa is withholding

23

information protected by the attorney-client privilege,

24

work product, or for any other reason, LJ Spa shall

25

produce a privilege log. See Sprint II, 2014 WL 1569963 at

26

*3. If LJ Spa is not withholding any information protected

27

by the attorney-client privilege, work product, or for any

28

other reason, it shall serve on Defendant a supplemental
14

11cv2389

1

response so stating. In addition, LJ Spa shall include in

2

its

3

referred to in the Interrogatory. Expert witness discovery

4

is not required to respond to this Interrogatory.

supplemental

response

its

computation

of

damages

5

Request for Production of Documents No. 53-64

6

Pursuant to the discussion at Section I.A. of this

7

Order, LJ Spa’s objections are waived. To the extent that

8

LJ

9

attorney-client privilege, work product, or for any other

10

reason, including that the documents are “objectionable,”

11

LJ Spa shall produce to Defendant a privilege log. See

12

Sprint II, 2014 WL 1569963 at *3. If LJ Spa is not with-

13

holding any information protected by the attorney-client

14

privilege, work product, or for any other reason, it shall

15

serve on Defendant a supplemental response so stating.

16

Further, pursuant to Section I.B. of this Order, LJ Spa

17

shall serve a supplemental response to these Requests that

18

specify in sufficient detail to enable Defendant to locate

19

and identify the documents which are responsive to these

20

Requests and to which LJ Spa refers. In the event the

21

documents to which Fay Ave refers do not sufficiently

22

respond to these Requests, Fay Ave is directed to supple-

23

ment its response to comply with this Order.

Spa

is

withholding

information

protected

by

the

24

Request for Admission No. 21

25

Pursuant to the discussion at Section I.A. of this

26

Order, LJ Spa’s objections are waived. LJ Spa’s response

27

to this Request for Admission is not responsive to the

28

Request for Admission because Defendant requested that LJ
15

11cv2389

1

Spa admit or deny details of the alleged theft of equip-

2

ment. LJ Spa did not admit or deny the Request for Admis-

3

sion as written. LJ Spa shall provide to Defendant a

4

supplemental response that responds to the Request for

5

Admission as written.

6

Request for Admission No. 22

7

Pursuant to the discussion at Section I.A. of this

8

Order, LJ Spa’s objections are waived. The response to

9

this

Request

for

Admission

is

not

responsive

to

the

10

Request for Admission because Defendant requested that LJ

11

Spa admit or deny details of the alleged theft of equip-

12

ment. LJ Spa did not admit or deny the Request for Admis-

13

sion as written. LJ Spa shall provide to Defendant a

14

supplemental response that responds to the Request for

15

Admission as written.

16

Request for Admission No. 23

17

Pursuant to the discussion at Section I.A. of this

18

Order, LJ Spa’s objections are waived. LJ Spa’s response

19

to this Request for Admission is not responsive because

20

Defendant requested that LJ Spa admit or deny details of

21

the alleged theft of inventory and products from the

22

retail boutique and spa. LJ Spa did not admit or deny the

23

Request for Admission as written. LJ Spa shall provide to

24

Defendant a supplemental response that responds to the

25

Request for Admission as written.

26

Request for Admission No. 29

27

Pursuant to the discussion at Section I.A. of this

28

Order, LJ Spa’s objections are waived. Pursuant to Federal
16

11cv2389

1

Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4), LJ Spa shall serve on

2

Defendant a supplemental response that explains why it can

3

not admit or deny this Request for Admission. LJ Spa’s

4

response is not responsive because Defendant requested

5

that LJ Spa admit or deny that Dr. Richard Choo performed

6

surgeries at the surgery center between November 2009 and

7

March 10, 2010. LJ Spa did not admit or deny the Request

8

for Admission as written. LJ Spa may assert lack of

9

knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit

10

or deny this Request for Admission only if LJ Spa states

11

that it has made a reasonable inquiry and that the infor-

12

mation it knows, or can readily obtain, is insufficient to

13

enable it to admit or deny the Request for Admission.

14

Request for Admission No. 30

15

Pursuant to the discussion at Section I.A. of this

16

Order, LJ Spa’s objections are waived. Pursuant to Federal

17

Rule of Civil Procedure 36(a)(4), LJ Spa shall serve on

18

Defendant a supplemental response that explains why it can

19

not admit or deny this Request for Admission.

20

response is not responsive because Defendant requested

21

that LJ Spa admit or deny that Dr. Peter Mann performed

22

surgeries at the surgery center between November 2009 and

23

March 10, 2010. LJ Spa did not admit or deny the Request

24

for Admission as written. LJ Spa may assert lack of

25

knowledge or information as a reason for failing to admit

26

or deny this Request for Admission only if LJ Spa states

27

that it has made a reasonable inquiry and that the infor-

28

mation it knows or can readily obtain is insufficient to
17

LJ Spa’s

11cv2389

1

enable it to admit or deny the Request for Admission.

2

On or before July 15, 2014, Plaintiffs shall serve

3

on Defendant all privilege logs and supplemental responses

4

as indicated in this Order.

5
6

DATED:

July 1, 2014

7
8

Hon. William V. Gallo
U.S. Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

18

11cv2389