Tran v. Chubb Group of Insurance Companies et al
Filing
90
OPINION AND ORDER granting 70 Motion to Deem Admitted the First Set of Requests for Admissions Propounded on Plaintiff. Plaintiff is ORDERED to supplement her responses to defendant's Requests for Admission no later than 9/14/2015.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 9/2/2015. (pes)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
NGOC TRAN,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action 2:14-cv-447
Judge Watson
Magistrate Judge King
vs.
CHUBB GROUP OF INSURANCE
COMPANIES, et al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Federal Insurance Company’s
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a) Motion to Deem Admitted the First Set of
Requests for Admissions Propounded on Plaintiff, ECF 70 (“Defendant’s
Motion”).
I.
For the reasons that follow, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED.1
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff alleges that defendant Federal Insurance Company
(“defendant”)2 issued an insurance policy providing coverage to
plaintiff for jewelry having an appraised value of $266,825.00 (“the
Policy”).
Complaint, ECF 11, ¶ 2.
According to plaintiff, her home
was burglarized on June 13, 2013, and all but four pieces of her
jewelry were stolen.
Id. at ¶ 3.
Plaintiff further alleges that the
remaining four pieces of jewelry were stolen during a second robbery
1
The Court concludes that this motion may be resolved on the parties’ filings
and therefore declines to schedule oral argument on this motion. The Court
further notes that defendant has withdrawn its request for attorney’s fees
and monetary sanctions in connection with this motion. See Joint Notice, ECF
86, p. 2.
2
With the agreement of the parties, all other defendants have been dismissed.
Preliminary Pretrial Order, ECF 17, p. 3.
1
that occurred on October 24, 2013.
Id. at ¶ 7.
Plaintiff claims
that, although she “fully complied” with the Policy’s requirements,
defendant has “wrongfully refused to pay for this insured loss.”
Id.
at ¶¶ 4-5, 8-9.
On May 27, 2015, defendant served its first request for
admissions on plaintiff.
Exhibit A, attached to Defendant’s Motion
(“Requests for Admission” or “Request No. ___”).
After plaintiff
responded to defendant’s requests, see Exhibit B, attached to
Defendant’s Motion (“Plaintiff’s Answers” or “Answer No. __”),
defendant asked plaintiff to supplement her answers to the requests.
See Exhibit C, attached to Defendant’s Motion.
When plaintiff failed
to supplement, Defendant’s Motion was filed, seeking to deem admitted
the Requests for Admissions.
Plaintiff has filed Plaintiff Tran’s
Memorandum Contra Defendant’s Motion to Deem Admitted First Set of
Requests for Admissions, ECF 74 (“Memo. Contra”), and this matter is
ripe for resolution with the filing of Reply in Support of Federal
Insurance Company’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a) Motion to Deem Admitted the
First Set of Requests for Admissions Propounded on Plaintiff, ECF 80
(“Reply”).
II.
STANDARD
Rule 26(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that
“[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter
that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.”
26(b)(1).
Fed. R. Civ. P.
Relevance for discovery purposes is extremely broad.
Lewis v. ACB Bus. Servs., Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 402 (6th Cir. 1998).
2
“The scope of examination permitted under Rule 26(b) is broader than
that permitted at trial.
The test is whether the line of
interrogation is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence.”
500-01 (6th Cir. 1970).
Mellon v. Cooper-Jarrett, Inc., 424 F.2d 499,
However, “district courts have discretion to
limit the scope of discovery where the information sought is overly
broad or would prove unduly burdensome to produce.”
Surles ex rel.
Johnson v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288, 305 (6th Cir. 2007)
(citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)).
See also Lewis, 135 F.3d at 402
(determining the proper scope of discovery falls within the broad
discretion of the trial court).
In determining the proper scope of
discovery, a district court balances a party’s “right to discovery
with the need to prevent ‘fishing expeditions.’”
Conti v. Am. Axle &
Mfg. Inc., No. 08-1301, 326 F. App’x 900, at *907 (6th Cir. May 22,
2009) (quoting Bush v. Dictaphone Corp., 161 F.3d 363, 367 (6th Cir.
1998)).
Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs the
Court’s determination of whether answers or objections to admissions
are sufficient.
Specifically, Rule 36 permits a party to
serve on any other party a written request to admit, for
purposes of the pending action only, the truth of any
matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to:
(A)
facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions
about either; and
(B)
the genuineness of any described documents.
3
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1).
“A matter is admitted unless, within 30
days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed
serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed
to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney.”
Fed. R. Civ.
P. 36(a)(3).
If a matter is not admitted, the answer must specifically
deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot
truthfully admit or deny it. A denial must fairly respond
to the substance of the matter; and when good faith
requires that a party qualify an answer or deny only a part
of a matter, the answer must specify the part admitted and
qualify or deny the rest.
The answering party may assert
lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to
admit or deny only if the party states that it has made
reasonable inquiry and that the information it knows or can
readily obtain is insufficient to enable it to admit or
deny.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).
After considering a motion to determine the
sufficiency of an answer or objection, a court may find that an
objection was justified or, if not, order that an answer or amended
answer be served or deem the matter admitted.
Fed. R. Civ. P.
36(a)(6).
Finally, a party filing a discovery motion must certify that it
has exhausted extrajudicial efforts in attempting to obtain the
requested discovery.
been met in this case.
S.D. Ohio Civ. R. 37.2.
This requirement has
Defendant’s Motion, p. 8 (certification).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant attached copies of plaintiff’s federal and state
(Pennsylvania) individual and business tax return documents for the
4
years 2011 and 2012 to its Requests for Admission.3
All of the thirty
Requests for Admission ask plaintiff to verify the authenticity of
various documents and to verify the information contained in the
returns.
For example, plaintiff asks the following:
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
Please admit that the document attached as Exhibit A-1
hereto is a true and accurate copy of your 2011 Form 1040
U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.
ADMIT ____
DENY ____
If this request is denied, then please specify whether you
admit any portion of this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:
Please admit that Exhibit A-1 contains true and accurate
information.
ADMIT ____
DENY ____
If this request is denied, then please specify whether you
admit any portion of this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
Please admit that you provided the income information
contained in Exhibit A-1 to MHC Tax Service and/or Martin
H. Chan, CPA.
ADMIT ____
DENY ____
If this request is denied, then please specify whether you
admit any portion of this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
Please admit that you authorized MHC Tax Service and/or
Martin H. Chang, CPA to execute Exhibit A-1 for you.
3
Defendant did not attach copies of these personal and business tax documents
with the copy of the Requests for Admission filed with the Court. See id.
5
ADMIT ____
DENY ____
If this request is denied, then please specify whether you
admit any portion of this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
Please admit that Exhibit A-1 was filed with the Internal
Revenue Service.
ADMIT ____
DENY ____
If this request is denied, then please specify whether you
admit any portion of this request.
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:
Please admit that Exhibit A-1 accurately and truthfully
reflects all income you earned in 2011.
ADMIT ____
DENY ____
If this request is denied, then please specify whether you
admit any portion of this request.
See Requests for Admission (repeating the same questions as to all of
the federal and state tax documents for the years 2011 and 2012).
After several general objections invoking privilege and
challenging the relevancy, burden, and scope of the requests,
plaintiff gave the following response to all thirty of the Requests
for Admission:
Objection. Plaintiff Tran incorporates the forgoing
General Objections. This request is unduly burdensome and
harassing because, upon information and belief, Defendant
and its attorneys have requested information within their
possession and control. Further this request is ambiguous,
over broad, and unduly burdensome because it seeks a
narrative response better suited to deposition testimony.
Plaintiff Tran additionally states issues relating to tax
returns and her knowledge and understanding of tax returns
6
was covered fully during the 10 hours of transcribed
deposition testimony, where an interpreter was available to
assist plaintiff in explaining and elaborating answers to
defendant’s questions.
Without waiving objection and solely in the interest
of expediting discovery plaintiff Tran states: the request
for admission is denied, I do not understand taxes I do not
want to answer correctly, I do not know the answer to this
Question.
See Plaintiff’s Answers.
Defendant contends that its requests simply ask plaintiff to
admit facts concerning the preparation and filing of her tax returns,
including the verification of her own tax documents that were prepared
for her and filed on her behalf.
Defendant’s Motion, p. 3.
Defendant
argues that plaintiff’s general denials and claimed lack of
understanding of taxes are wholly insufficient and demonstrate her bad
faith because the requests do not require an understanding of taxes.
Id. at 3-5.
Defendant further argues that the Requests for Admission
should be deemed admitted because plaintiff denied the requests
without making the reasonable inquiry required by Rule 36(a)(4). Id.
at 5-6.
In response, plaintiff primarily argues the merits of her claims
and summarizes deposition testimony regarding alleged burglaries in
plaintiff’s neighborhood.
Memo. Contra, pp. 1-4 (asserting, inter
alia, that “[t]here is no evidence of the plaintiff having extra money
from an unknown source to pay any significant debt obligations.
There
is no evidence of the plaintiff or any resident of her household
selling any jewelry following this theft”).
7
Plaintiff also represents
that defendant inquired about her income history during her 13-hour
deposition.
Id. at 1-2.
Plaintiff testified “that she did not
understand tax law, and therefore could not truthfully answer
questions about information contained on the tax returns.
At the
conclusion of this extended interrogation, the defendant submitted
requests for admissions relating to information contained on certain
Federal and State tax returns.”
Id.
According to plaintiff, “[s]he
responded to the request[s] for admissions along the same tenor of the
answers to the same questions asked of her in the deposition; that she
did not understand tax law and therefore did not know the answer.”
Id. at 2.
Plaintiff goes on to assert that “[t]he entire issue of
financial statements is an irrelevant collateral issue.
Regardless,
the plaintiff in good faith has answered questions truthfully to the
best of her ability . . . in the response to the request for
admissions.”
Id. at 4.
Defendant explains in reply that the information it seeks is
relevant to the issues in this case.
Reply, pp. 3-4.
According to
plaintiff’s tax returns, her income was $1.00 and $4,391.00 in 2011
and 2012, respectively.
Id. at 3 (citing Exhibit A, attached thereto
(redacted copies of plaintiff’s tax returns)).
If these amounts are
accurate, then plaintiff did not have sufficient income to pay for
household living expenses and give her live-in boyfriend “a few
hundred dollar[s]” whenever he requested, as he testified in his
deposition.
pp. 187-89).
Id. (citing Continued Deposition of Vandy Lim, ECF 51,
Defendant contends that the discovery it seeks regarding
8
plaintiff’s income, i.e., asking plaintiff to admit that her stated
income is accurate, is relevant and her answers based on lack of
knowledge are insufficient.
Id. at 3-4.
Defendant therefore asks for
an order deeming the Requests for Admission admitted or, in the
alternative, for an order compelling plaintiff to supplement her
responses.
Id. at 4. Defendant’s arguments are well-taken.
Defendant’s requests are relevant to the issues in this case and
ask plaintiff to admit merely the authenticity of her tax returns and
certain facts regarding the preparation and filing of those tax
returns. The requested information is therefore within the possession
of the plaintiff.
Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4)(“The answering party
may assert lack of knowledge or information as a reason for failing to
admit or deny only if the party states that it has made reasonable
inquiry and that the information it knows or can readily obtain is
insufficient to enable it to admit or deny.”).
Response to these
requests does not require an understanding of the tax code and
plaintiff’s objection based on her lack of understanding of tax law
therefore rings hollow.
Plaintiff also takes the position that the information sought by
the Requests for Admission are “better suited to deposition testimony”
and that defendant, in fact, asked plaintiff questions about her tax
returns during that deposition.
However, as plaintiff admits, “[s]he
responded to the request for admissions along the same tenor of the
answers to the same questions asked of her in the deposition; that she
did not understand tax law and therefore did not know the answer.”
9
Memo. Contra, p. 2.
For the reasons previously discussed, these
answers to the Requests for Admission are insufficient.
must therefore supplement her answers to these requests.
Plaintiff
See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 36(a)(6).
WHEREUPON, Federal Insurance Company’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)
Motion to Deem Admitted the First Set of Requests for Admissions
Propounded on Plaintiff, ECF 70, is GRANTED.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to
supplement her responses to defendant’s Requests for Admission no
later than September 14, 2015. Plaintiff’s failure to do so will
result in an order deeming the requests admitted.
September 2, 2015
s/Norah McCann King_______
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
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?