Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01378/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01378-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance 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 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CAROLINA CASUALTY INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OAHU AIR CONDITIONING SERVICE, 

INC. dba OAHU AIR CONDITIONING 

CO., et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC 

ORDER 

 On September 10, 2014, the court heard oral argument on defendant Pacific Commercial 

Services, LLC’s (“Pacific”) motion to compel. David Tate appeared for plaintiff Carolina 

Casualty Insurance Company’s (“plaintiff”); Page Perry appeared for defendant Oahu Air 

Conditioning Service, Inc. (“Oahu”); and Christopher Johnson appeared for Pacific. After 

carefully considering the parties’ papers and arguments, Pacific’s motion to compel is 

GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 

The court’s prior order on Pacific’s motion to dismiss provides the relevant factual 

background giving of this action: 

In October 2010, plaintiff issued an insurance policy to Smith, a 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 79 Filed 09/17/14 Page 1 of 16
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

transportation company that specializes in transporting hazardous 

waste to disposal sites. (FAC ¶ 9.) In July 2011, Smith transported 

a trailer loaded with hazardous material from San Jose, California 

to a waste disposal site in Sacramento, California. (Id. ¶ 11.) After 

Smith delivered the trailer, the Sacramento Police Department was 

called to the disposal site because the trailer was observed emitting 

white smoke. (Id. ¶ 12.) After several hours, an active fire broke 

out and completely engulfed the trailer. (Id.) A subsequent 

investigation revealed that the trailer contained refrigerator waste 

oil that Oahu had shipped to California for disposal, and that the 

fire resulted in the release of hazardous vapors and contaminated 

water runoff into the environment. (Id. ¶ 13.) 

As a result of this incident, a number of claimants issued Smith 

notices of violation and demanded that it pay for the cleanup of the 

hazardous waste spill from the trailer. (Id. ¶ 22.) Pursuant to 

Smith’s insurance policy, which required plaintiff to provide a 

defense and indemnify Smith from any claims resulting from a 

hazardous waste spill, plaintiff settled and paid upon numerous 

claims brought against plaintiff by several claimants, including the 

City of Sacramento, the County of Sacramento, and Clean Harbor 

Environmental Services. (Id. ¶¶ 23-24.) In addition, plaintiff 

reimbursed Smith for its cleanup expenses and indemnified it 

against additional personal injury damages. (Id. ¶ 25.) 

Plaintiff alleges that defendants were involved in the supply, 

packing, and transportation of the refrigerator waste oil that Smith 

transported to Sacramento. (Id. ¶¶ 17-21.) As a result, plaintiff and 

Smith issued a claim and demand to defendants for reimbursement 

of the payments plaintiff incurred as a result of the hazardous waste 

spill. (Id. ¶ 26.) Defendants did not pay. (Id.) 

Plaintiff then brought this action seeking: (1) subrogation pursuant 

to Section 112(c) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 

§ 9612(c); (2) contribution pursuant to Section 113(f) of CERCLA, 

42 U.S.C. § 9613(f); (3) contribution and/or indemnity pursuant to 

the Hazardous Substance Account Act (“HSAA”), Cal. Health & 

Safety Code § 25363; (4) equitable indemnity under California 

common law; (5) allocation and apportionment of fault under 

California common law; (6) contribution under California common 

law; and (7) subrogation under California common law. (Docket 

No. 7.) 

ECF No. 22 at 2–3. 

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

 A. Requests for Admissions 

 Rule 36(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 

A party may 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 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 79 Filed 09/17/14 Page 2 of 16
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

law to fact, or opinions about either; and (B) the genuineness of any 

described documents. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1). The purpose of requests for admission is to narrow the issues for trial by 

identifying and eliminating those matters on which the parties agree. Safeco of Am. v. Rawstron, 

181 F.R.D. 441, 443 (C.D. Cal. 1998). A matter is deemed admitted unless the responding party 

serves a written answer or objection within thirty days of service of the request. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

36(a)(3). If an objection is made in place of an admission or denial, the responding party must 

state the reasons for the objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(5). If the court finds an objection is not 

justified, “it must order that an answer be served.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(6). “On a finding that an 

answer does not comply with [Rule 36], the court may order either that the matter is admitted or 

that an amended answer be served.” Id. 

 “Parties may not view requests for admission as a mere procedural exercise requiring 

minimally acceptable conduct. They should focus on the goal of the Rules, full and efficient 

discovery, not evasion and word play.” Marchand v. Mercy Med. Ctr., 22 F.3d 933, 938 (9th Cir. 

1994) (citation omitted). “[A] party who is unable to agree with the exact wording of the request 

for admission should agree to an alternate wording or stipulation.” U.S. ex rel. Englund v. L.A. 

Cnty., 235 F.R.D. 675, 684 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (citing Marchand, 22 F.3d at 938). “Instead of 

admitting or denying the request for admission, a party may respond by claiming inability (lack of 

sufficient information) to admit or deny the matter stated in the request . . . [b]ut a party 

responding in this manner must also state that he or she has made ‘reasonable inquiry and that the 

information known or readily obtainable by the party is insufficient to enable the party to admit or 

deny.’” Englund, 235 F.R.D. at 684 (quoting Fed. R. Div. P. 36(a)). 

Finally, it is not ground for objection that the request is 

“ambiguous” unless so ambiguous that the responding party cannot, 

in good faith, frame an intelligent reply. Parties should “admit to 

the fullest extent possible, and explain in detail why other portions 

of a request may not be admitted.” Failure to do so may result in 

sanctions. 

Id. at 685 (citing Marchand, 22 F.3d at 938). 

//// 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 79 Filed 09/17/14 Page 3 of 16
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

B. Interrogatories 

 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, interrogatories must be “answered separately 

and fully in writing under oath.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3). A party is obligated to respond to the 

fullest extent possible and state any objections with specificity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(3), (b)(4). 

While extensive research is not required, a reasonable effort to respond must be made. L.H. v. 

Schwarzenegger, No. S–06–2042 LKK GGH, 2007 WL 2781132, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Sep. 21, 2007). 

In a motion to compel, the moving party bears the burden of showing why the other party’s 

responses are inadequate or their objections unjustified. See Williams v. Cate, No. 1:09–cv–

00468 LJO JLT PC, 2011 WL 6217378, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec.14, 2011) (citing Ellis v. Cambra, 

No. 1:02–cv–05646–AWI–SMS PC, 2008 WL 860523, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2008)). A 

district court has broad discretion in deciding whether to require answers to interrogatories. See 

8A WRIGHT, MILLER & MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 2176 at 311 & n. 1 (Civil 

2d ed. 1994). 

III. DISCUSSION 

 As a threshold matter, the court notes that the parties’ joint statement does not fully 

comply with Local Rule 251(c) because it fails to reproduce in full each specific request objected 

to and the objection thereto; or to include “respective arguments and supporting authorities of the 

parties . . . set forth immediately following each such objection.” L.R. 251(c). Nevertheless, 

objections and the parties’ respective arguments and supporting authorities are summarized to the 

extent the court can understand which requests and interrogatory responses Pacific seeks to put in 

issue. 

 On June 6, 2014, Pacific served the requests for admissions and interrogatories at issue on 

plaintiff. Johnson Decl. Exs. A–B, ECF No. 69-1. On July 18, 2014, plaintiff served its 

responses. Id. Exs. C–D. 

 The parties exchanged correspondence regarding the discovery dispute beginning on 

August 4, 2014. See id. Ex. E. On August 8, 2014, plaintiff’s counsel indicated it would provide 

amended responses to the disputed requests. Id. Ex. F; see also id. Exs. G–H (subsequent 

correspondence between the parties). 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 79 Filed 09/17/14 Page 4 of 16
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

 On August 15, 2014, Pacific filed the instant motion to compel. ECF No. 68. On August 

22, 2014, plaintiff amended its responses to the request for admissions and interrogatories. Tate 

Decl. Exs. A–B, ECF No. 71. On September 3, 2014, the parties filed their joint statement 

regarding the discovery dispute. ECF No. 69. 

 A. Requests for Admissions Numbers 7–15 

Pacific asks the court to deem request numbers 7–15 admitted because plaintiff failed to 

answer each request and offered no facts to support its claims. ECF No. 69 at 15. Pacific argues 

under Rule 36(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “[i]f 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” and plaintiff “refused to respond” to each of the requests at issue. Id. at 15–16. 

Pacific argues “[p]laintiff’s response[s] reflect[] an unwillingness to take a position on any factual 

issues, unnecessarily prolonging the litigation and violating the purpose of” Rule 36. Id. at 16. 

Further, Pacific argues plaintiff waived any objection to the term “drum” as used in some of the 

requests because plaintiff failed to object to the term as vague or ambiguous. Id. at 17. 

 In opposition, plaintiff argues it amended its responses to request numbers 7–15 on 

August 22, 2014 during the parties’ meet and confer. ECF No. 69 at 27, 30–34; see also Tate 

Decl. Ex. A. Plaintiff further argues there is “no legal authority or factual justification for” the 

court to deem its responses to request numbers 7–15 admitted. Id. at 34. 

 With regard to whether the court should deem the responses admitted, Pacific further 

argues plaintiff cannot withdraw or amend its “deemed” admissions. ECF No. 69 at 17. Pacific 

posits that “[a]lthough [p]laintiff did not raise the issue during the meet and confer, it may attempt 

to argue that it would be entitled to amend or withdraw the ‘deemed’ admissions, upon a showing 

that the admissions would subserve the presentation of the merits, and that withdrawal would not 

prejudice” defendant.” Id. at 17–19. 

 The court questioned Pacific during the hearing on whether some of the issues in its 

motion to compel are moot in light of plaintiff’s August 22, 2014 amended discovery responses. 

Pacific conceded request for admission numbers 10 and 15 are mooted by plaintiff’s amended 

responses. Accordingly, the court DENIES Pacific’s motion to compel responses to request 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 79 Filed 09/17/14 Page 5 of 16
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

numbers 10 and 15 as moot and will not deem the responses admitted or order a further response. 

Each remaining request will be addressed in turn below. 

 1. Request For Admission Nos. 7–8 

Request No. 7: Admit that PCS is not the “owner and operator” of 

the ELDER CREEK YARD, as those terms are used in CERCLA 

§107(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. §9607(a)(1). 

Request No. 8: Admit that PCS is not a person who “arranged for 

disposal or treatment” or any waste at the ELDER CREEK YARD, 

as those terms are used in CERCLA §107(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 

§9607(a)(1). 

Johnson Decl. Ex. C. 

Response to Request Nos. 7 and 8: Objection: compound; 

misleading and misstates the law; and exceeds the scope of 

discovery and seeks an admission that is not relevant to a claim or 

defense of any party and not relevant to the subject matter involved 

in the action. Further, discovery is continuing, there have not been 

full document productions and depositions have not been taken. 

The INCIDENT occurred at the Elder Creek yard location as the 

materials were in transport or transit from Oahu Air Conditioning 

and PCS in Hawaii to Utah for disposal. 

Id. 

 Ruling: 

 Here, Pacific argues request numbers 7 and 8 are relevant to the action because they 

address Pacific’s “potential exposure under three of the four categories of CERCLA liability, by 

establishing that [Pacific] is not the owner or operator of the holding yard where the fire occurred, 

and that [Pacific] did not arrange for disposal of waste at that holding yard.” ECF No. 69 at 16. 

 Plaintiff disputes Pacific’s argument whether Pacific is the owner or operator of the Elder 

Creek Yard is relevant for discovery purposes. ECF No. 69 at 35. Plaintiff also contends it 

sufficiently amended its response to request numbers 7 and 8, see ECF No. 69 at 30–31; however, 

the amended responses simply delete the last sentence of each response. Id. 

 Pacific’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Under liberal discovery rules, the court finds 

Pacific has demonstrated these requests for admissions may be relevant to the subject matter of 

the case. Plaintiff’s amended response to request numbers 7 and 8 that discovery is continuing is 

insufficient. To the extent plaintiff cannot truthfully admit or deny the requests, plaintiff must 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 79 Filed 09/17/14 Page 6 of 16
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

“state in detail why [it] cannot truthfully admit or deny [them].” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). 

Plaintiff makes no specific showing why it cannot truthfully admit or deny the requests other than 

its conclusory statement that “discovery is continuing” and “there have not been full document 

productions and depositions have not been taken.” Accordingly, plaintiff shall respond by either 

admitting or denying request numbers 7 and 8 or stating in detail why it cannot truthfully admit or 

deny them. 

 2. Request for Admission No. 9 

Request: Admit that PCS did not generate the liquid inside the 

DRUM. 

Response: Objection: the request for admission indicates that 

DRUM has a special definition, but Propounding Party does not 

provide that definition; vague and ambiguous as to how 

Propounding Party defines or intends to define the term “generate”; 

misleading and misstates the law; and exceeds the scope of 

discovery and seeks an admission that is not relevant to a claim or 

defense of any party and not relevant to the subject matter involved 

in the action. Further, discovery is continuing, there have not been 

full document productions and depositions have not been taken. 

Johnson Decl. Ex. C. 

Amended Response: Objection: the request for admission 

indicates that DRUM has a special definition which Propounding 

Party does not provide in its Requests for Admissions; and vague 

and ambiguous as to how Propounding Party defines or intends to 

define the term “generate”. Further, discovery is continuing, there 

have not been full document productions and depositions have not 

been taken. 

Through meet and confer Propounding Party has defined the 

DRUM to be the container that held the refrigerator oil which is at 

issue in this case. 

Without waiving the objections stated, Responding Party responds 

as follows: denied. 

Tate Decl. Ex. A. 

 Ruling: 

 Pacific’s argument with regard to request number 9 is that plaintiff’s “sole excuse for 

failing to answer . . . was the omission of a definition for the ‘drum.’” ECF No. 69 at 16–17. 

Pacific concludes “[p]laintiff’s conduct supports a determination” that request numbers 9 through 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 79 Filed 09/17/14 Page 7 of 16
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 

8

15 be deemed admitted. Id. at 17. 

 Pacific’s motion to compel is DENIED. In light of plaintiff’s amended response explicitly 

denying the request for admission, the court will not deem the response admitted or order a 

further response.1

 3. Request for Admission No. 11 

Request: Admit that the DRUM contained less than 50 gallons of 

liquid. 

Response: Objection: the request for admission indicates that 

DRUM has a special definition, but Propounding Party does not 

provide that definition. Further, discovery is continuing, there have 

not been full document productions and depositions have not been 

taken. 

Johnson Decl. Ex. C. 

Amended Response: Objection: the request for admission 

indicates that DRUM has a special definition which Propounding 

Party does not provide in its Requests tor Admissions. Further, 

discovery is continuing, there have not been full document 

productions and depositions have not been taken. 

Through meet and confer Propounding Party has defined the 

DRUM to be the container that held the refrigerator oil which is at 

issue in this case. 

Without waiving the objections stated, Responding Party responds 

as follows: after having made a reasonable inquiry the information 

that Responding Party currently knows or can readily obtain is 

insufficient to enable Responding Party to admit or deny this 

request, and accordingly on that basis Responding Party does not 

 

1

 Pacific argues plaintiff “may attempt to argue that it would be entitled to amend or withdraw the 

‘deemed’ admissions, upon a showing that the admissions would subserve the presentation of the 

merits.” ECF No. 69 at 17–19. While Pacific is not entirely clear regarding this argument, it 

appears it is trying to address the fact plaintiff that amended its responses before the court heard 

the motion to compel. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b) (Once admitted due to (1) a complete 

failure to respond, (2) untimeliness, or (3) insufficiency, an admission cannot be amended or 

withdrawn except by leave of court.); see also 999 v. C.I.T. Corp., 776 F.2d 866, 869 (9th Cir. 

1985). Because the court did not “deem” the requests admitted before plaintiff amended its 

responses, this argument is misplaced. Pacific has presented no authority that supports ignoring 

plaintiff’s amended responses. In fact, Pacific’s portion of the joint statement did not even 

address the fact that plaintiff had amended its responses nearly two weeks before the joint 

statement was filed. As noted, some of the amended responses remain insufficient. However, to 

the extent they explicitly admit or deny a request for admission, the court is unaware of any 

authority supporting a ruling that the amended responses should be ignored entirely. Rather, a 

court may ignore amended responses and rely solely on initial responses “as the Court deems 

just.” Ford v. Wildey, No. 1:10–cv–01024–LJO–SAB (PC), 2014 WL 2619595, at *5 n.4 (E.D. 

Cal. June 6, 2014). 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 79 Filed 09/17/14 Page 8 of 16
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 

9

admit or deny this request. 

Tate Decl. Ex. A. 

 Ruling:

 Pacific’s argument with regard to request number 11 is that plaintiff’s “sole excuse for 

failing to answer . . . was the omission of a definition for the ‘drum.’” ECF No. 69 at 16–17. 

 Pacific’s motion to compel is GRANTED. While plaintiff amended its responses to 

explain it cannot admit or deny this request “after having made a reasonable inquiry,” plaintiff 

fails to set forth any detail as to the nature of the “reasonable inquiry” it made to amend its 

response to request number 11. See Asea, Inc. v. S. Pac. Transp. Co., 669 F.2d 1242, 1246 (9th 

Cir. 1981) (“We are not persuaded that an answer to a request for admission necessarily complies 

with Rule 36(a) merely because it includes a statement that the party has made reasonable inquiry 

and that the information necessary to admit or deny the matter is not readily obtainable by him.”); 

see also Englund, 235 F.R.D at 685 (Explaining “[t]he responding party’s simple statement that 

he or she has made a ‘reasonable’ inquiry and is unable to admit or deny the request because 

insufficient information is available may not suffice as an answer to the request for admission.”); 

A. Farber & Partners, Inc. v. Garber, 237 F.R.D. 250, 256–57 (C.D. Cal. 2006). Accordingly, 

plaintiff shall respond by either admitting or denying request number 11 or stating in detail the 

nature of the “reasonable inquiry” it made. 

 4. Request for Admission No. 12 

Request: Admit that PCS did not select the ELDER CREEK 

YARD as the site for disposal of the DRUM. 

Response: Objection: the request for admission indicates that 

DRUM has a special definition, but Propounding Party does not 

provide that definition; misleading and misstates the law and 

evidence; and exceeds the scope of discovery and seeks an 

admission that is not relevant to a claim or defense of any party and 

not relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Further, 

discovery is continuing, there have not been full document 

productions and depositions have not been taken. 

The INCIDENT occurred at the Elder Creek yard location as the 

materials were in transport or transit from Oahu Air Conditioning 

and PCS in Hawaii to Utah for disposal. 

Johnson Decl. Ex. C. 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 79 Filed 09/17/14 Page 9 of 16
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 

10

Amended Response: Objection: the request for admission 

indicates that DRUM has a special definition, but Propounding 

Party does not provide that definition (through meet and confer 

Propounding Party has defined the DRUM to be the container that 

held the refrigerator oil which is at issue in this ease); misleading 

and misstates the law and evidence; assumes and misstates facts; 

within the terms and definitions if CERCLA is not comprehendible; 

and exceeds the scope of discovery and seeks an admission that is 

not relevant to a claim or defense of any party and not relevant to 

the subject matter involved in the action. Further, discovery is 

continuing, there have not been full document productions and 

depositions have not been taken. 

Tate Decl. Ex. A. 

 Ruling:

 Pacific’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s amended response to request 

number 12, relying on the ongoing status of discovery, is insufficient. To the extent plaintiff 

cannot truthfully admit or deny the request, plaintiff must “state in detail why [it] cannot 

truthfully admit or deny it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Plaintiff makes no specific showing why it 

cannot truthfully admit or deny the request other than its conclusory statement that “discovery is 

continuing” and “there have not been full document productions and depositions have not been 

taken.” Tate Decl. Ex. A. Accordingly, plaintiff shall respond by either admitting or denying 

request number 12 or stating in detail why it cannot truthfully admit or deny it. 

 5. Request for Admission No. 13 

Request: Admit that PCS did have any contact with the DRUM 

after it was loaded onto the Matson vessel 

“Manoa.” 

Response: Objection: the request for admission indicates that 

DRUM has a special definition, but Propounding Party does not 

provide that definition; vague and ambiguous as to the term 

“contact.” Further, discovery is continuing, there have not been full 

document productions and depositions have not been taken. 

Johnson Decl. Ex. C. 

Amended Response: Objection: the request for admission 

indicates that DRUM has a special definition which Propounding 

Party does not provide in its Requests for Admissions. Further, 

discovery is continuing, there have not been full document 

productions and depositions have not been taken. 

Through meet and confer Propounding Party has defined the 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 79 Filed 09/17/14 Page 10 of 16
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 

11

DRUM to be the container that held the refrigerator oil which is at 

issue in this case. 

Without waiving the objections stated, Responding Party responds 

as follows: after having made a reasonable inquiry the information 

that Responding Party currently knows or can readily obtain is 

insufficient to enable Responding Party to admit or deny this 

request, and accordingly on that basis Responding Party does not 

admit or deny this request. 

Tate Decl. Ex. A. 

 Ruling:

 Pacific’s argument with regard to request number 13 is that plaintiff’s “sole excuse for 

failing to answer . . . was the omission of a definition for the ‘drum.’” ECF No. 69 at 16–17. 

 Pacific’s motion to compel is GRANTED. While plaintiff amended its responses to 

explain it cannot admit or deny this request “after having made a reasonable inquiry,” plaintiff 

fails to set forth in detail the nature of the “reasonable inquiry” it made to amend its response to 

request number 11. Asea, 669 F.2d at 1246. Accordingly, plaintiff shall respond by either 

admitting or denying request number 13 or stating in detail the nature of the “reasonable inquiry” 

it made. 

 6. Request for Admission No. 14 

Request: Admit that SST had the opportunity to inspect the 

DRUM before it was loaded onto the TRAILER. 

Response: Objection: the request for admission indicates that 

DRUM has a special definition, but Propounding Party does not 

provide that definition; vague and ambiguous as to the definitions 

of the terms “opportunity” and “inspect.” Further, discovery is 

continuing, there have not been full document productions and 

depositions have not been taken. 

Johnson Decl. Ex. C. 

Amended Response: Objection: the request for admission 

indicates that DRUM has a special definition which Propounding 

Party does not provide in its Requests for Admissions. Further, 

discovery is continuing, there have not been full document 

productions and depositions have not been taken. 

Through meet and confer Propounding Party has defined the 

DRUM to be the container that held the refrigerator oil which is at 

issue in this case. 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 79 Filed 09/17/14 Page 11 of 16
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 

12

Without waiving the objections stated, Responding Party responds 

as follows: denied. 

Tate Decl. Ex. A. 

 Ruling:

 Pacific’s motion to compel is DENIED. In light of plaintiff’s amended response explicitly 

denying the request for admission, the court will not deem the response admitted or order a 

further response. 

 B. Requests for Admissions Numbers 6 & 16

 Pacific argues that request numbers six and sixteen were denied by plaintiff, but that 

plaintiff’s corresponding interrogatory responses indicate plaintiff “cannot truthfully deny” the 

requests. ECF No. 69 at 19–20. Pacific accordingly contends that plaintiff “failed to make any 

inquiry into the truth of the matter.” Id. at 20. Pacific argues that the court should find plaintiff’s 

responses to request numbers 6 and 16 “insufficient, and compel [p]laintiff to inquire into all 

available facts, including its own records, records available from SST or Clean Harbors, and 

records available from public entities that responded to or investigated the trailer fire, and amend 

its response to the Interrogatories accordingly.” Id. 

 1. Request For Admission No. 6 

Request: Admit that the lithium batteries on the TRAILER were 

not properly packed to prevent battery terminals from coming into 

contact. 

Response: Objection: vague and ambiguous as to the terms 

“properly,” “packed,” and “contact,” and “contact” with what and 

which specific batteries or battery terminals; exceeds the scope of 

discovery and seeks an admission that is not relevant to a claim or 

defense of any party and not relevant to the subject matter involved 

in the action. Further, discovery is continuing, there have not been 

full document productions and depositions have not been taken. 

Without waiving the objections stated, Responding Party responds 

as follows: denied. 

Johnson Decl. Ex. C. 

Amended Response: Objection: vague and ambiguous as to the 

terms “properly,” “packed,” and “contact,” and “contact” with what 

and which specific batteries or battery terminals; exceeds the scope 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 79 Filed 09/17/14 Page 12 of 16
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 

13

of discovery and seeks an admission that is not relevant to a claim 

or defense of any party and not relevant to the subject matter 

involved in the action. Further, discovery is continuing, there have 

not been full document productions and depositions have not been 

taken. 

Without waiving the objections stated, Responding Party responds 

as follows: Responding Party is not aware of any battery terminals 

coming into contact, however, after having made a reasonable 

inquiry the information that Responding Party currently knows or 

can readily obtain is insufficient to enable Responding Party to 

admit or deny this request, and accordingly on that basis 

Responding Party does not admit or deny this request. 

Tate Decl. Ex. A. 

 Ruling:

 Pacific’s motion to compel is GRANTED. While plaintiff amended its responses to 

explain it cannot admit or deny this request “after having made a reasonable inquiry,” plaintiff 

fails to set forth in detail the nature of the “reasonable inquiry” it made to amend its response to 

request number 6. Asea, 669 F.2d at 1246. Accordingly, plaintiff shall respond by either 

admitting or denying request number 6 or stating in detail the nature of the “reasonable inquiry” it 

made. 

 2. Request For Admission No. 16 

Request: Admit that SST left the TRAILER at the ELDER 

CREEK YARD unattended from June 29, 2011, to the date of the 

INCIDENT. 

Response: Objection: vague and ambiguous as to the term 

“unattended.” Further, discovery is continuing, there have not been 

full document productions and depositions have not been taken. 

Without waiving the objections stated, Responding Party responds 

as follows: denied. 

Johnson Decl. Ex. C. 

Amended Response: Objection: vague and ambiguous as to the 

term “unattended.” Further, discovery is continuing, there have not 

been full document productions and depositions have not been 

taken. 

Tate Decl. Ex. A. 

//// 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 79 Filed 09/17/14 Page 13 of 16
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 

14

 Ruling:

 Pacific’s motion to compel is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s amended response to request 

number 16 that discovery is continuing is insufficient. To the extent plaintiff cannot truthfully 

admit or deny the request, plaintiff must “state in detail why [it] cannot truthfully admit or deny 

it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(3). Plaintiff makes no specific showing why it cannot truthfully admit 

or deny the request other than its conclusory statement that “discovery is continuing” and “there 

have not been full document productions and depositions have not been taken.” Accordingly, 

plaintiff shall respond by either admitting or denying request number 16 or stating in detail why it 

cannot truthfully admit or deny it. 

C. Interrogatory Numbers 1–4 and 17 

 Pacific argues the court should compel plaintiff to answer interrogatory numbers 1–4 and 

17 “by identifying the specific records supporting its claims.” ECF No. 69 at 21. Pacific argues 

that, with regard to these interrogatory responses, plaintiff denied each of the corresponding 

requests for admissions but “offered no facts in support of its denials.” Id. Instead, Pacific 

argues plaintiff only stated it already produced the documents in discovery without specifically 

identifying the responsive documents. Id. Pacific claims “[d]uring the meet and confer on the 

[m]otion, [p]laintiff continued to refuse to identify the documents, instead offering only to specify 

categories of records from which the answers could be derived . . . .” Id. at 22. This approach, 

Pacific argues, “fails to satisfy [p]laintiff’s obligations under [Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure], which requires the response to identify the documents ‘as readily as the 

responding party could.’” Id. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d)(1)). 

 Plaintiff opposes Pacific’s motion, arguing it has already served amended responses that 

specify the records. ECF No. 69 at 38–46. 

 During the hearing on Pacific’s motion to compel, the court asked Pacific’s counsel why 

the motion as to interrogatory numbers 1–4 and 17 should not be denied as moot in light of 

plaintiff’s amended responses, which specifically identify responsive documents. Pacific argued 

against a finding of mootness because some of the responses identify more than 11,500 pages of 

documents or, in the case of interrogatory number 17, refer Pacific to all pleadings and records. 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 79 Filed 09/17/14 Page 14 of 16
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 

15

 A party may answer an interrogatory by specifying records from which the answer may be 

obtained and by making the records available for inspection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d)(2). However, 

the records must be specified “in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and 

identify them as readily as the responding party could.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d)(1). Responses to 

interrogatories that fail to specify where in the records answers can be found do not comply with 

Rule 33(d)(1). Rule 33 was amended in 1980 “to make clear that a responding party has the duty 

to specify, by category and location, the records from which the answers to the interrogatories can 

be derived.” Rainbow Pioneer No. 44-18-04A v. Haw.-Nev. Inv. Corp., 711 F.2d 902, 906 (9th 

Cir. 1983). 

 A citation to thousands of pages of documents is an insufficient response to 

interrogatories. See Englund, 235 F.R.D. at 682; see also Walt Disney Co. v. DeFabiis, 168 

F.R.D. 281, 284 (C.D. Cal. 1996) (specification of records must be in sufficient detail to allow 

party to locate and identify documents from which the interrogatory answer may be ascertained, 

as readily as the party served); Cambridge Electronics Corp. v. MGA Electronics, Inc., 227 

F.R.C. 313, 323 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (“‘[A party] must identify in their answers to the interrogatories 

specifically which documents contain the answer. Otherwise they must completely answer the 

interrogatories without referring to the documents.’” (quoting Pulsecard, Inc. v. Discovery Card 

Servs., 168 F.R.D. 295, 305 (D. Kan. 1996))). 

 Here, notwithstanding the parties’ failure to reproduce in full each specific request in the 

joint statement, see L.R. 251(c), the court has reviewed plaintiff’s amended responses to 

interrogatory numbers 1–4 and 17. See Tate Decl. Ex. B. 

 With regard to plaintiff’s amended responses to interrogatory numbers 1 and 2, Pacific 

acknowledged at the hearing that plaintiff provided a list of documents. Upon review, the court 

has determined that plaintiff listed approximately 67 and 72 pages of documents in response to 

these two interrogatories, respectively. Id. The number of pages provided is a sufficient 

response. Accordingly, Pacific’s motion to compel responses to interrogatory numbers 1 and 2 is 

DENIED. 

 With regard to plaintiff’s amended responses to interrogatory numbers 3 and 4, as noted 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 79 Filed 09/17/14 Page 15 of 16
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 

16

by Pacific during the hearing, plaintiff references more than 11,500 pages in its response. Tate 

Decl. Ex. B. Further, while plaintiff only identifies approximately 72 pages in its response to 

interrogatory number 17, it also references “all pleadings, records and documents in this case” as 

responsive to Pacific’s interrogatory. Id. Plaintiff’s citation to more than 11,500 pages of 

documents or generally to the entire case records fails to satisfy the specificity requirements of 

Rule 33. Accordingly, Pacific’s motion to compel responses to interrogatory numbers 3, 4 and 17 

is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall supplement its responses and specify with sufficient detail where in 

the records each answer may be obtained. 

D. Interrogatory Numbers 7–15

 Finally, Pacific argues that if the court does not deem request numbers 7–15 admitted, it 

should compel plaintiff to serve detailed and complete responses to the corresponding 

interrogatories. ECF No. 69 at 22–23. 

 Pacific’s arguments here completely fail to comply with Local Rule 251(c). None of the 

interrogatories are reproduced in the joint statement, and Pacific’s arguments are vague and 

conclusory. The court will not undertake an examination of each interrogatory and glean from 

the joint statement Pacific’s arguments in support of a motion to compel responses to these 

interrogatories. See, e.g., U.S. v. Molen, No. 8:10–CV–708–T–TGW, 2011 WL 1810499, at *8 

(E.D. Cal. May 9, 2011) (where a party fails to comply with Local Rule 251, discovery motions 

are denied without prejudice for re-filing). 

 Pacific’s motion to compel responses to interrogatories numbers 7–15 is therefore 

DENIED. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons set forth above, Pacific’s motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART and 

DENIED IN PART. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: September 16, 2014 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 79 Filed 09/17/14 Page 16 of 16