Bostock v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC et al

Filing 39

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 35 Motion to Compel; denying 36 Motion to Compel; denying 36 Motion for Hearing; denying 37 Motion to Compel. Within 30 days of this Order, Plaintiff Barbara Bostock is to provide complete written responses to Safeco's pending discovery requests. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (st)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
BARBARA BOSTOCK,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00329-BLW
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

v.
AURORA LOAN SERVICES, LLC;
SAFECO INSURANCE CO. OF
ILLINOIS; MORTGAGE
ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION
SYSTEMS, INC.; and JOHN or JANE
DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
Defendants.

INTRODUCTION
Pending before the Court is Defendant Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois’ Motion to
Compel (Dkt. 35). Also pending is Plaintiff Barbara Bostock’s request for a “court date,”
which the Court construes as a request for a hearing (Dkts. 36, 37). For the reasons
explained below, the Court will grant the motion to compel, but will deny Safeco’s
request for an award of attorneys’ fees. The Court will deny Bostock’s request for a
hearing.
BACKGROUND
In 2014, Barbara Bostock sued Safeco Insurance Company along with two other

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

defendants. Safeco answered the complaint and later served discovery requests upon
plaintiff, including interrogatories, requests for admission, and document requests. See
Safeco’s First Set of Discovery, Dkt. 35-1. Safeco says Bostock has “willfully refused”
to respond to the discovery requests and seeks an order compelling Bostock to respond,
as well as an award of attorneys’ fees.
Bostock is approximately 80 years old and represents herself in this action. On
January 27, 2016 and February 1, 2016, Bostock responded to Safeco’s motion to compel
by filing two separate handwritten documents. See Dkts. 36, 37. It appears that Bostock
is attempting to respond to some of the discovery requests with these filings. The filings
contain various generalized statements regarding the flood at a home she formerly owned
and the damage caused by that flood. Bostock has also included several photographs of
the home and a copy of a Notice of Cancellation of a Homeowners Policy. See Dkts. 36,
37.
DISCUSSION
The Court will order Bostock to provide more complete responses to the pending
discovery. To the extent Bostock is relying on the documents filed with this Court to
serve as discovery responses, they are deficient. The main problem is that Bostock has
not taken the time to answer or state specific objections to any particular request.
Instead, she provides generalized information or objections, including, for example, the
following statements:
• “What was lost in my flood – . My home was covered. You have it
in the discovery sent 1/25/2016. Also Photos of damage. Also on
photos of damage. Which says it all . . . .” Dkt. 37, at 1.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

• “It is so straightforward. Plz notice – this is a waste of time.
‘Exhibit A’ Insurance Policy Safeco Co still covered. Everyone
agrees the flood was from 2/3 or 2/4.” Dkt. 36, at 1.
• “Mr. Sebastian, I realize you are doing your job but are you telling
me you have had no conversations with Anderson Yates?? – He
was trying to move forward on Safeco. Now I have explained my
AKA’s – I was in show biz – this has nothing to do with Safeco. My
so security also – putting that out. My phone has been hacked
2/22/14 – car broken into in Id. Now 2 complaints taken – had not
gotten summons done. Enough of this crazy false stuff. Right is
Right – Wrong is wrong. Pl do what is right – so I can move on – I
thank you.” Dkt. 36-1, at 2 (handwritten notation indicates “page 20
of 20”) (internal paragraph divisions omitted here).
These sorts of statements do not allow Safeco to prepare for trial or otherwise
defend itself in this action. Further, it appears that Bostock has simply ignored many of
the discovery requests. Accordingly, the Court will grant Safeco’s motion to compel. At
this time, the Court will not sanction plaintiff. Among other things, the Court is not
convinced that she “willfully” refused to respond to discovery, as Safeco argues.
As for Bostock’s request that the Court set a “court date,” the Court declines to
schedule any hearing at this time. The Court is not persuaded that a hearing on this
motion would aid the decisional process. And, more generally, the Court does not see a
need for any other hearing at this time.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED that:
(1) Defendant Safeco Insurance Co. of Illinois’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. 35) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

a. The Motion to Compel is granted to the extent that, within 30 days of
this Order, Plaintiff Barbara Bostock is ordered to provide complete
written responses to Safeco’s pending discovery requests.
b. The Motion to Compel is DENIED to the extent Safeco seeks an
attorneys’ fee award.
(2) Plaintiff Barbara Bostock’s request for a “Court date” (Dkts. 36, 37) is
DENIED at this time.
DATED: March 16, 2016

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4