Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03097/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03097-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 *E-FILED 11/30/06*

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FRANCIS YEE, IRENE YEE

Plaintiffs, 

 v.

VENTUS CAPITAL SERVICES, ET AL.

Defendants. 

______________________________________________

NO. C 05-03097 (RS)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

MOTION TO COMPEL

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is the motion of defendant Academy Collection Service, Inc. to compel

further discovery responses and its request for sanctions. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1 (b), the Court

finds this motion suitable for disposition without oral argument. For reasons explained below, the

motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

Case 5:05-cv-03097-RS Document 112 Filed 11/30/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 The factual background of this action has been discussed in prior orders and will not be

repeated here.

2

DISCUSSION1

 A. Timeliness of Motion.

Plaintiffs argue that this motion was untimely filed because the “case management order does

not specify the deadline for motions to compel but it would be reasonable to make it the same as the

discovery cut off.” Academy responds that since “there is no set time limit either in the Code [sic]

or in the Court’s Case Management Order,” it should be deemed to have acted with reasonable

diligence by filing this motion a little more than a month after receiving the discovery responses in

dispute. 

Local Civil Rule 26-2 is entitled, in relevant part, “Deadline to File Motions to Compel” and

it expressly provides that motions to compel may be filed up to seven court days after the discovery

cut-off. Here, the discovery cut-off was October 16, 2006. This motion was filed on the fifth court

day thereafter, October 23, 2006. The motion is timely.

B. Interrogatory Responses

Academy propounded one set of 25 numbered interrogatories on each plaintiff. Although

plaintiffs asserted various objections to each interrogatory, the sole objection on which it relies in

opposing this motion is its contention that the 25th interrogatory in each set created a violation of the

numerical limit on interrogatories. That interrogatory asked plaintiffs to state the factual basis for

any response to a request for admissions that was not an unqualified admission. Plaintiffs are

correct that such an interrogatory “counts” separately for each applicable request for admission. See

Local Civil Rule 33-2; Safeco of America v. Rawston, 181 F.R.D. 441, 445-446 (C.D. Cal. 1998). 

Accordingly, plaintiffs could properly object to responding further to the 25th interrogatory after

answering it with respect to one request for admission. 

Plaintiffs cannot, however, evade providing any substantive responses to the first 24

interrogatories (or a response to the 25th interrogatory with respect to one request for admission),

simply because the remainder of the 25th interrogatory is objectionable. Accordingly, the motion is

granted as to Interrogatories Nos. 1-24 in each set, and as to Interrogatory No. 25 in each set, limited

Case 5:05-cv-03097-RS Document 112 Filed 11/30/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

to a single request for admission.

C. Document Requests

On reply, Academy acknowledges receipt of the documents it was seeking.

D. Sanctions

The request for sanctions is denied. Local Civil Rule 7-8 requires all motions for sanctions

to be separately noticed.

CONCLUSION

The motion to compel and request for sanctions is granted to the extent set forth above and is

otherwise denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2006 

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-03097-RS Document 112 Filed 11/30/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT NOTICE OF THIS ORDER HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Steve W. Dollar nritz@eakdl.com

Eric F. Fagan efagan@efaganlaw.com, dorian@efaganlaw.com; jeremy@efaganlaw.com

Jeremy Scott Golden jeremy@efaganlaw.com, dorian@efaganlaw.com

Daniel Paul McKinnon dmckinnon@eakdl.com, pbradford@eakdl.com

John Karl Rossman rossmanj@moss-barnett.com, cred-rem@moss-barnett.com

Natalie P. Vance nvance@klinedinstlaw.com, ntooley@klinedinstlaw.com;

lwelch@klinedinstlaw.com

Dated: 11/30/06 Chambers of Judge Richard Seeborg

By: /s/ BAK 

Case 5:05-cv-03097-RS Document 112 Filed 11/30/06 Page 4 of 4