Everest Indemnity Insurance Company v. Aventine-Tramoni Homeowners Association, et al.,
Filing
281
ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part 183 Motion to Compel. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Supplement its Answers to Aventine-Tremontis First Set of Interrogatories, Responses to Aventine- Tremontis First Set of Request for Production of Documents and Motion Regarding Sufficiency of an Answer or Objection to Aventine-Tremontis Requests for Admission (#183) is GRANTED as to Requests for Admission 5-7 and 12-14; Interrogatories 5, 7, 12-14, and 17; and Requests for Production 11-48 and DENIED as to all other requests. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert J. Johnston on 8/29/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
8
EVEREST INDEMNITY INSURANCE
COMPANY,
9
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
AVENTINE-TRAMONTI HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, a non-profit corporation;
and DOE HOMEOWNERS’ 1 through 500,
TOWN CENTER VENTURES LLC, a
Nevada limited liability company; CAMS
CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, a
Nevada corporation; ACCESS
TECHNOLOGIES; AMERICAN ASPHALT,
GRADING CO.; AMPAM/RCR
PLUMBING; ARC ELECTRIC; AVANTI
DOOR GROUP; BAIR’S CARPET;
BRANDON IRON INC.; C&W CLEANING;
CENTURION SECURITY SYSTEM;
CLOSET MASTERS; COAST WET
PLUMBING, INC.; CONSTANT
LIGHTING; CUSTOM HEALTH
DISTRIBUTORS, INC.; D & L FRAMING;
DAN BRADLEY’S GLASS SHOP, INC,;
DESERT RAIN-ENVIOR SCAPE;
DISTINCTIVE FRAMING; DISTINCTIVE
MARBLE, INC.; JOHNSON ELECTRIC; h
& B CONSTRUCTION ; HARRISON
DOOR COMPANY; HIGH ENERGY
ELECTRIC; JAYLEE DEVELOPMENT,
LLC; KEEGAN ENGINEERING, P.C.;
MASONRY BY BOB MARKS; METRO
ELECTRIC; MOTIVATIONAL SYSTEMS,
INC.; NEVADA GYPSUM FLOORS, INC.;
NEVADA STAIRS, INC.;
2:09-cv-1672-RCJ-RJJ
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER
Aventine-Tramonti Homeowners Association’s
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Supplement its
Answers to Aventine-Tremonti’s First Set of
Interrogatories, Responses to AventineTremonti’s First Set of Request for Production
of Documents and Motion Regarding
Sufficiency of an Answer or Objection to
Aventine-Tremonti’s Requests for Admission
(#183)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
NEVADA STATE PLASTERING; NEW
CRETE; NORPAC CONSTRUCTION LLC;
PACIFIC DRYWALL & PAINT; PEARSON
TRENCHING; PERSONAL TOUCH
INTERIORS; PIONEER OVERHEAD
DOORS; PIPES PAVING; POOLS BY
GRUBE; QUALITY CABINETS; R.W.
STUCCO, INC.; RISING SUN PLUMBING,
LLC.; SAN GABRIEL, INC; SEARS
CONTRACT SALES; SKYLINE
INSULATION; STATE INSULATION;
SUMMIT DRYWALL & PAINT; SUNRISE
MECHANICAL, INC.; SUPERIOR TILE &
MARBLE, INC.; UNITED RENTALS
HIGHWAY TECH; VAZZANA
UNDERGROUND; WEST COST
FRAMING; WESTCOR WINDOWS &
PATIO DOOR; WESTERN PIPELINE
CONSTRUCTION CORP.; WILLIS
ROOFING CO., INC.; ZEPEDA BROS.
PAINT & DRYWALL,
16
Defendants.
_____________________________________
NEVADA GYPSUM FLOORS, INC., a
Nevada corporation,
17
vs.
18
EVEREST INDEMNITY INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Delaware corporation,
15
19
20
Counterclaimant,
Counterdefendant.
21
22
23
24
25
26
This matter comes before the Court on Aventine-Tramonti Homeowners Association’s
Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Supplement its Answers to Aventine-Tremonti’s First Set of
Interrogatories, Responses to Aventine-Tremonti’s First Set of Request for Production of
Documents and Motion Regarding Sufficiency of an Answer or Objection to AventineTremonti’s Requests for Admission (#183). The Court also considered Plaintiff’s Response
27
28
2
1
(#199) and Defendant’s Reply (#205).
2
3
BACKGROUND
This is an interpleader action that arises out of an underlying state court case involving a
4
dispute between Aventine-Tramonti Homewoners Association (Aventine) and Town Center
5
Ventures, LLC (Town Center), a developer, over alleged construction defects. Everest Indemnity
6
Insurance Company (Everest) issued an Owner Controlled Insurance Program policy, No.
7
5000000253-031, to Town Center. Everest initiated this action asking the Court to determine the
8
validity of the various insureds’ policy demands and to seek to be released from all further
9
liability under the policy.
10
Aventine sent written discovery to Everest, including Requests for Admission,
11
Interrogatories, and Requests for Production. Aventine asserts that Everest’s responses to the
12
written discovery is inadequate and asks to Court to compel Everest to supplement its answers.
13
Everest opposes the motion.
14
15
16
DISCUSSION
I. Requests for Admission 1-16
Aventine failed to comply with LR 26-7(a) because it did not “set forth in full the text of
17
the discovery originally sought and the response thereto, if any” in its motion. However,
18
Aventine did provide a copy of Everest’s answers with its Reply. Plaintiff’s Answers to
19
Requests for Admission, Exhibit 3 Attached to Defendants’ Reply (#205). Aventine summarizes
20
the content of its Requests for Admission 1-16 and the objections made by Everest but never
21
explains why it believes Everest’s answers are improper. Instead, Aventine “asks this Court to
22
determine whether [Everest’s] failure to respond and use of objections violate its discovery
23
obligations and frustrate justice.” Defendants’ Motion (#183) at 7 ll. 11-12. In essence,
24
Aventine asks the Court to do its work for it.
25
26
Because Everest agreed to supplement certain Requests for Admission, the Court will
only consider those requests that Aventine refused to supplement. These are Requests for
27
28
3
1
2
Admission 5-7 and 12-14.
Even a cursory glance at Everest’s answers is enough to determine that they are
3
inadequate. The Court only considers the unsupplemented requests, 5-7 and 12-14. Request No.
4
5 will serve as an example, as all of Everest’s objections follow the same improper formula.
5
6
Request for Admission No. 5:
Admit that prior to the issuance of the EVEREST POLICY, YOU had
7
experience in underwriting liability insurance coverage for contractors involved in
8
the construction of multi-unit condominium projects in Clark County, Nevada.
9
Response to Request for Admission No. 5:
10
ENIC hereby incorporates by reference all the foregoing general
11
statements and objections. ENIC also objects to the definition “YOU” as overly
12
broad. ENIC further objects to the definition of EVEREST POLICY as
13
misleading and that it mischaracterizes the insureds under the policy. ENIC also
14
objects to this request as it is overly broad and unlimited as to scope.
15
ENIC also objects to this request because it is vague, ambiguous, and
16
unintelligible as to the phrases and/or terms “experience in underwriting liability
17
insurance coverage,” and “contractors involved in the construction of multi-unit
18
condominium projects.” ENIC also objects to this request on the grounds that it is
19
compound.
20
21
22
ENIC further objects to this request to the extent it seeks information
protected by attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine and right of privacy.
ENIC also objects to this request in that it seeks information which is
23
beyond the scope of permissible discovery in that it is not relevant to the
24
appropriate claims or defenses in this action nor likely to lead to discovery of
25
admissible evidence. ENIC further objects to this request to the extent that it is
26
unduly oppressive and burdensome.
27
28
4
1
Plaintiff’s Answers to Requests for Production at 6-7, Attached as Exhibit 3 to Defendants’
2
Reply (#205).
3
“Parties may not view requests for admission as a mere procedural exercise requiring
4
minimally acceptable conduct.” Marchand v. Mercy Medical Center, 22 F.3d 933, 936
5
(9th Cir. 1994). The goal of the Federal Rules “is full and efficient discovery, not evasion and
6
word play.” Id. “The grounds for objecting to a request must be stated.” FED. R. CIV. P.
7
36(a)(5). Answers to Requests for Admissions must admit or deny the admission, be specific,
8
must fairly respond to the substance of the matter, and must be made in good faith. See FED. R.
9
CIV. P. 36(a)(4).
10
Everest never admits or denies the requests, nor does it explain why it is unable to
11
answer. See FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(4). Everest’s boilerplate objections are repeatedly made
12
without reference to any grounds that might support them. In fact, every single objection is
13
identical, except for the second paragraph where Everest merely inserts the language of the
14
request. Everest’s responses are inadequate and its objections baseless and improper.
15
First, Everest objects to certain definitions of words used in the requests. Everest objects
16
to the definition of “YOU,” which Aventine defines as: “Plaintiff Everest Indemnity Company
17
and all other persons or entities acting on its behalf,” because it is overly broad. Defendants’
18
Requests for Admission at 2, Attached as Exhibit 1 to Defendants’ Motion (#183). However,
19
Everest never explains why it believes the term “YOU” is overly broad, nor does it answer
20
subject to a limited definition of the term. Aventine limits its definition to Everest and its
21
representatives. It could have been limited only to representatives whose actions relate to the
22
transactions, facts, or occurrences that comprise this lawsuit, but even without such limitation,
23
the term “YOU” as defined by Aventine is not overly broad.
24
Next, Everest objects to the term “EVEREST POLICY” as it is misleading and
25
mischaracterizes the insureds. Aventine defines the term as “policy number 5000000253-031
26
issued to Town Center Ventures LLC.” Defendants’ Requests for Admission at 2, Attached as
27
28
5
1
Exhibit 1 to Defendants’ Motion (#183). Everest never explains exactly how such a definition is
2
misleading or mischaracterizes the insureds. The only potentially interpretive clause of the
3
definition is: “issued to Town Center Ventures LLC”. However, on the first page of the policy
4
attached as Exhibit 1 to Everest’s Complaint (#1), it lists the named insured as “Town Center
5
Ventures, LLC.” Though there may be factual questions in this case as to who exactly is covered
6
by the policy at issue, Everest’s objection to Aventine’s definition does not release it from its
7
obligation to response to requests for admission. Everest makes the same objection to every
8
request, and it is improper in all of them.
9
Then, Everest objects to the request as being overly broad and unlimited in scope. The
10
Court can find no basis for such an objection. Aventine limits the time period (prior to the
11
issuance of the policy); the subject matter (insurance coverage for contractors); the type of
12
project (multi-unit condominiums); and the location (Clark County, Nevada). The question is
13
limited in scope and breadth. Aventine’s other requests are equally limited. This objection is
14
improper.
15
Everest then objects to whatever language Aventine uses in its requests as being vague,
16
ambiguous, and unintelligible. For example, in response to Request 5, Everest states that it is
17
unable to understand the phrases, “experience in underwriting liability insurance coverage,” and
18
“contractors involved in the construction of multi-unit condominium projects.” Plaintiff’s
19
Answers to Requests for Production at 7, Attached as Exhibit 3 to Defendants’ Reply (#205). It
20
is difficult for the Court to understand Everest’s inability to decipher such statements. This
21
objection is improper because it is evasive word play. Marchand, 22 F.3d at 936.
22
Everest then claims attorney-client privilege and invokes the doctrines of work product
23
and right of privacy without any explanation or privilege log as required by FED. R. CIV. P.
24
26(b)(5)(A). Everest fails to “describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible
25
things not produced or disclosed ... in a manner that ... will enable other parties to assess the
26
claim.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). If these objections are to be upheld, Everest must
27
28
6
1
comply with the rules. It has not.
2
Everest’s next objects to all of the requests because they are outside the scope of
3
permissible discovery and that they are not relevant. Specifically, Everest argues that Aventine
4
lacks standing to bring the claims and defenses that would entitle it to the discovery it seeks.
5
Because Aventine cannot raise these claims and defenses, Everest asserts that Aventine’s
6
requests for discovery on those defenses are not relevant. Until that issue is resolved by the
7
Court, Aventine will be permitted to pursue all relevant discovery. The requests it has made are
8
not outside the scope of Everest’s claims or Aventine’s defenses.
9
Lastly, Everest argues that the requests are unduly oppressive and burdensome.
10
“[O]bjections such as ‘overly burdensome and harassing’ are improper-especially when a party
11
fails to submit any evidentiary declarations supporting such objections.” A. Farber & Partners,
12
Inc. v. Garber, 234 F.R.D. 186, 188 (C.D. Cal. 2006). Besides labeling them as such, Everest
13
gives no support to its claim that Aventine’s request are unduly oppressive and burdensome.
14
This objection is also improperly made.
15
Here, both parties have failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or
16
the Local Rules. Therefore, the Court will order that Everest supplement its responses to
17
Aventine’s Requests for Admission 5-7 and 12-14. Everest must admit or deny each request in
18
compliance with FED. R. CIV. P. 36. Because of Everest’s uncooperative and vacuous objections,
19
it will do so without objection.
20
II. Aventine’s Interrogatories 1-20
21
Aventine failed to comply with LR 26-7(a). Again, Aventine argues that its questions
22
were proper and that Everest’s responses to the interrogatories were improper without citing any
23
authority or providing any analysis other than baseless conclusions. Aventine argues that Everest
24
waived any claims of privilege and should produce a privilege log, but provides no support for
25
either argument. For example, “[Aventine] submits that [Everest] and/or its proxies, including
26
attorneys, put their conduct before this Court in seeking equity and have waived any claims for
27
28
7
1
privilege or privacy–if such information is necessary to meet [Everest’s] fantastic allegations.”
2
Defendants’ Motion (#183) at 7 ll. 23-25.
3
Here, not only does Aventine fail to cite any authority for its waiver argument, but it also
4
fails to assert that the allegedly privileged information it seeks is necessary to the case. Again,
5
Everest has agreed to supplement all of its answers to Aventine’s Interrogatories except 5, 7, 12-
6
14, and 17, yet Aventine does not limit its motion to those Interrogatories.
7
However, in response to Interrogatories 5, 7, 12-14, and 17, Everest objects, verbatim, in
8
exactly the same fashion as it objected to Aventine’s Requests for Admission. Everest’s
9
Answers to Aventine’s Interrogatories, Attached as Exhibit 1 to Defendants’ Reply (#205).
10
Because Aventine also failed to comply with the Rules, the Court will only consider those
11
Interrogatories that Everest refused to supplement. For all the reasons mentioned above, Everest
12
must fully answer Aventine’s Interrogatories 5, 7, 12-14, and 17 without objection.
13
III. Aventine’s Requests for Production 1-48
14
Aventine provides at least some reasoning to explain its assertion that Everest should be
15
compelled to produce documents, addressing Everest’s objections based on privilege, breadth,
16
scope, and privacy. Everest agreed to supplement its answers to Requests for Production 1-10,
17
but would not supplement its answers to Request for Production 11-48 on the grounds that the
18
requests are not relevant. Everest again asserts numerous objections including all of the
19
objections explained above and adding the objections that every request is compound and that
20
every request seeks confidential and proprietary information.
21
It appears as though Everest does not take its discovery obligations seriously. Excessive
22
evasion or resistance to reasonable discovery requests pose significant problems. Burlington N.
23
& Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1148
24
(9th Cir. 2005). A boilerplate objection inserted into a Rule 34 response to a request for
25
production of documents in insufficient to assert a privilege. Burlington, 408 F.3d at 1149. If a
26
party fails to provide a privilege log within the 30 day guideline provided by Rule 34, the Court
27
28
8
1
may find the privilege waived. Id. This is a case by case determination, looking into factors such
2
as:
3
[1] the degree to which the objection or assertion of privilege enables the litigant
seeking discovery and the court to evaluate whether each of the withheld
documents is privileged (where providing particulars typically contained in a
privilege log is presumptively sufficient and boilerplate objections are
presumptively insufficient);
4
5
6
7
[2] the timeliness of the objection and accompanying information about the
withheld documents (where service within 30 days, as a default guideline, is
sufficient);
8
[3] the magnitude of the document production; and
9
[4] other particular circumstances of the litigation that make responding to
discovery unusually easy (such as, here, the fact that many of the same documents
were the subject of discovery in an earlier action) or unusually hard.
10
11
12
Id.
Here, Everest provides no information, or privilege log to the Court or to Aventine that
13
would enable it to determine whether the documents are privileged. There is nothing to indicate
14
that Everest’s responses were untimely, however, it has provided no accompanying information
15
as to why the withheld documents are privileged. Though Everest asserts that production of
16
documents would be unduly burdensome, it submits no declaration or evidence supporting that
17
fact. See A. Farber, 234 F.R.D. at 188 (holding that objections that discovery is unduly
18
burdensome or harassing are improper when the responding party fails to submit any evidentiary
19
declarations supporting such objections ). Finally, because this interpleader arises from an
20
underlying action that involves the same factual bases, there is nothing to suggest that responding
21
to the discovery would be unusually hard. If anything, the existence of the underlying action
22
should make discovery easier as Everest has already been involved in litigation related to the
23
subject insurance policy and factual predicate. Therefore, the Court finds that Everest waived
24
any privilege by failing to provide a privilege log and will be required to respond to Aventine’s
25
Requests for Production 11-48 without objection.
26
Though Aventine’s motion to compel is less than stellar, Everest’s discovery responses
27
28
9
1
2
are improper and will not be tolerated.
CONCLUSION
3
Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing therefore,
4
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Supplement
5
its Answers to Aventine-Tremonti’s First Set of Interrogatories, Responses to Aventine-
6
Tremonti’s First Set of Request for Production of Documents and Motion Regarding Sufficiency
7
of an Answer or Objection to Aventine-Tremonti’s Requests for Admission (#183) is
8
GRANTED as to Requests for Admission 5-7 and 12-14; Interrogatories 5, 7, 12-14, and 17; and
9
Requests for Production 11-48 and DENIED as to all other requests.
10
DATED this 29th day of August, 2011.
11
12
13
14
ROBERT J. JOHNSTON
United States Magistrate Judge
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10
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?