Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025-30/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA GRENING WOLK,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PHILIP R. GREEN,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-5025 BZ

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S SECOND MOTION TO

COMPEL

Before me is plaintiff’s second motion to compel

defendant to further answer interrogatories, requests for

admissions and requests for production of documents. For the

reasons discussed, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART AND

DENIED IN PART.

 Plaintiff requests an order compelling further responses

to interrogatory numbers 1, 4, 5, 8, 13, 15, and 16; requests

for admission numbers 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, 27, and 29; and

requests for production of documents numbers 1, 8, 11, 18,

24, 25, 26, and 27. I ordered defendant to provide further

responses to these discovery requests in my orders dated

October 29, 2007 and December 5, 2007. 

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 137 Filed 02/01/08 Page 1 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

In her moving papers, plaintiff contends that defendant

did not serve further responses to her interrogatories

pursuant to my October 29, 2007 order. However, defendant

attached a copy of his revised interrogatory responses as an

exhibit to his opposition which includes a certificate of

service stating that it was served on plaintiff by mail on

November 13, 2007. As such, it is presumed that defendant

served timely responses. Plaintiff has not produced evidence

to rebut that presumption. 

Interrogatory numbers 1 and 4 ask defendant to identity

lawsuits in which he obtained a positive verdict for his

client and in which he represented a defendant in a

defamation lawsuit. In his responses, defendant refers to

six cases but contends that he cannot remember a single case

name or number, he fails to indicate the courts in which the

suits were filed and he responds that such information is

“readily obtainable . . . as they constitute publicly

available information.” 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(3) requires that a

party “must” answer each interrogatory “separately and fully

in writing under oath.” “Parties must provide true,

explicit, responsive, complete, and candid answers to

interrogatories.” Hansel v. Shell Oil Corp., 169 F.R.D. 303,

305 (E.D.Pa. 1996). “If a party is unable to supply the

requested information, the party may not simply refuse to

answer, but must state under oath that he is unable to

provide the information and ‘set forth the efforts he used to

obtain the information.’” Id., quoting Milner v. National

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 137 Filed 02/01/08 Page 2 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

School of Health Tech., 73 F.R.D. 628, 632 (E.D.Pa 1977). 

Here, defendant fails to explain what efforts, if any, he

made to attempt to determine the names of his previous cases. 

I find it highly unlikely that defendant is unable to recall,

after conducting a reasonable inquiry, such basic requests. 

Nor does he provide any authority for the proposition that a

response that information can be gleaned from the public

record is an adequate response. In any event, the burden on

defendant, an attorney, to conduct a search to identify his

previous California cases is much less than it would be for a

pro se plaintiff who resides in North Carolina. I therefore

GRANT plaintiff’s motion as to interrogatory numbers 1 and 4. 

Defendant’s revised responses shall include the case name,

number, and identify the court in which the six cases

referred to in the responses were filed.

I also GRANT plaintiff’s motion for a further response

to interrogatory 8. The interrogatory requests a description

of the research defendant and anyone on his behalf conducted

in regard to the underlying lawsuit. In his response,

defendant states that he conducted the research in

conjunction with law clerks and that the “research consisted

of examining and analyzing relevant case law.” The response

is evasive and non-responsive as defendant fails to describe

the research conducted.

I DENY plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to

interrogatory numbers 5, 13, 15, and 16. I find the

responses adequate. Plaintiff takes issue with many

responses because they are contradicted by the record in the

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 137 Filed 02/01/08 Page 3 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

earlier case or by defendant’s previous discovery responses. 

Such inconsistencies are better dealt with by crossexamination, at deposition or trial. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further responses to

requests for admission numbers 16, 18, 19, and 29 is GRANTED.

In his moving papers, defendant opines that “admissions are

properly answered when based on a party’s personal

recollection of past facts or occurrences.” (Def.’s Opp’n 3.) 

However, a responding party must make a “reasonable inquiry

and secure such knowledge and information as are readily

obtainable by him.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 36, Adv.Comm.Notes 1970. 

Defendant is ORDERED to provide a straight forward response

to each request or the court will deem his responses to be

admissions. 

Defendant’s responses to request for admission numbers

17, 25, and 27 are adequate and plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. 

Again, defendant’s allegedly false responses to the requests

for admissions may be used to impeach defendant at deposition

or at trial but do not warrant issuing a further order to

compel.

Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED as to request for

production numbers 8, 24, and 25. Defendant is ORDERED to

produce any notes of his conversations with Mr. Wisbaum or

amend his response to reflect that such documents do not

exist. Defendant is further ORDERED to produce the documents

responsive to numbers 24 and 25 by February 11, 2008. 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel further response to her requests

for production of documents numbers 1, 11, 18, 24, and 27 is

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 137 Filed 02/01/08 Page 4 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

DENIED as defendant’s responses are adequate. 

Defendant has repeatedly refused to disclose a complete

copy of his liability insurance policy, and insists that the

declarations page is sufficient to satisfy Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) (formerly Rule 26(1)(D)). 

However, the plain language of the rule requires a party to

disclose, and to provide for inspection, “any insurance

agreement”, not just the declarations page of the policy. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iv); see also Morock v. Chautauqua

Airlines, Inc., 2007 WL 2875223, *1 (M.D.Fla. 2007)

(disclosure of declarations page and assurance that policy

would adequately cover plaintiff’s claims insufficient) ;

Boyer v. Riverhead Cent. School Dist., 2006 WL 3833040, * 2 -

3 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (summaries of policies insufficient). 

Plaintiff’s motion to compel defendant to produce the

complete insurance policy is GRANTED. 

Plaintiff also seeks an order to compel defendant to

return four of her books that she allegedly provided to him

in the underlying litigation, or to compensate her for the

costs of the books. Defendant contends that he does know

where the books are, and believes that he returned them to

her. A motion to compel is not the appropriate method for

plaintiff to recover the books. The motion to compel their

production is DENIED.

Plaintiff also requested an order compelling defendant

to provide a copy of a deposition transcript that she

contends should have been a part of her litigation file from

the underlying case. After she filed the motion, defendant

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 137 Filed 02/01/08 Page 5 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

provided her with a copy of the deposition transcript, but it

was not certified by a court reporter. In his responses to

her discovery, defendant has repeatedly claimed that he

already provided plaintiff with her entire litigation file

from the underlying case. Defendant’s failure to produce the

deposition transcript until after plaintiff filed a motion to

compel is troubling. Defendant is ORDERED to review all of

his files in order to ensure that he has provided plaintiff

with a copy of all documents from plaintiff’s litigation file

in the underlying case and shall file a sworn declaration 

certifying he has done so by Wednesday, February 6, 2008. 

Defendant is also ORDERED to serve, via post and email,

amended discovery responses and further documents that

comport with this order by Wednesday, February 6, 2008.

Defendant failed to completely produce all responsive

documents in his possession to plaintiff’s requests for

production of documents, he has repeatedly responded to

discovery requests stating he is unable to remember the

information called for in the requests, and some of his

responses to discovery are allegedly contradicted by the

record in the underlying case or by his previous discovery

responses. In light of this, it is HEREBY ORDERED that

defendant will be precluded from introducing at trial

documents responsive to plaintiff’s discovery requests that

should have been produced, but were not. Moreover, defendant

will be precluded from providing testimony that he is able to

remember facts at trial that he was unable to remember when

responding to discovery. Finally, plaintiff will be

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 137 Filed 02/01/08 Page 6 of 7
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

permitted to point out the inconsistencies of defendant’s

responses, if relevant and admissible, when examining

defendant at trial.

Plaintiff’s request to extend the pretrial schedule to

provide additional time for discovery is DENIED. I have

supervised this matter since April 27, 2007 and believe that

plaintiff received adequate discovery to permit her to

prepare for trial. 

Plaintiff’s request for the issuance of sanctions is

DENIED without prejudice. In her moving papers, plaintiff

refers to an “accompanying motion for sanctions” but the

docket does not reflect such a motion. However, the court

believes that some of defendant’s responses, particularly the

failure to produce the insurance policy, were without

substantial justification and is considering whether to

impose sanctions sua sponte. 

Dated: January 31, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\WOLK\ORDER GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFFS 2ND MOTION TO COMPEL.2.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 137 Filed 02/01/08 Page 7 of 7