Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01378/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01378-10/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 17, 2014, the undersigned issued an order granting in part and denying in 

part defendant Pacific Commercial Services, LLC’s (“Pacific”) motion to compel. ECF No. 79. 

On September 24, 2014, Pacific filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of the court’s 

order. ECF No. 80. On September 26, 2014, plaintiff Carolina Casualty Insurance Company 

(“CCIC”) filed an opposition to Pacific’s motion. ECF No. 81. The court has reviewed Pacific’s 

motion and, for the reasons set forth below, now GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART 

the motion. 

LEGAL STANDARDS 

Generally stated, reconsideration is appropriate where there has been an intervening 

change in controlling law, new evidence has become available, or it is necessary to correct clear 

error or prevent manifest injustice. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 87 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 6
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

5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993). 

In the absence of new evidence or a change in the law, a party may not use a motion for 

reconsideration to raise arguments or present new evidence for the first time when it could 

reasonably have been raised earlier in the litigation. Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th 

Cir. 2003); see also Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999). Motions 

to reconsider are also “not vehicles permitting the unsuccessful party to ‘rehash’ arguments 

previously presented.” United States v. Navarro, 972 F. Supp. 1296, 1299 (E.D. Cal. 1997), rev’d 

on other grounds, 160 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 1998). Ultimately, a party seeking reconsideration 

must show “more than a disagreement with the Court’s decision, and recapitulation of the cases 

and arguments considered by the court before rendering its original decision fails to carry the 

moving party's burden.” United States v. Westlands Water Dist., 134 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1131 

(E.D. Cal. 2001). 

ANALYSIS 

 In the instant motion, Pacific seeks the following relief: (1) reconsideration of the court’s 

denial of Pacific’s motion to compel responses to interrogatory numbers 7–15; (2) clarification of 

the court’s order compelling CCIC to serve amended responses to certain requests for admissions 

and interrogatories; and (3) clarification to the extent the court’s order does not address whether 

Pacific is entitled to monetary sanctions. ECF No. 80 at 2. Each issue is addressed in turn below. 

A. Interrogatory Nos. 7–15 

 In its September 17, 2014 order on Pacific’s motion to compel, the court granted, inter 

alia, Pacific’s motion as to request for admission numbers 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13. ECF No. 79 at 5–

14. The court denied Pacific’s motion to compel responses to interrogatory numbers 7–15 on the 

grounds that Pacific failed to reproduce the interrogatories and Pacific’s arguments were vague 

and conclusory. Id. at 16. 

 Pacific seeks reconsideration of the court’s order denying its request to compel detailed 

and complete responses to interrogatory numbers 7–15, arguing in part that it was excusable 

neglect to present the objected-to responses in a summary chart format. ECF No. 80 at 5. Pacific 

points out correctly that it reproduced the interrogatories in the joint statement, see ECF No. 69 at 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 87 Filed 12/15/14 Page 2 of 6
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

10, and argues that the court erred in denying its motion to compel on this ground. However, 

while the interrogatories are in fact reproduced in the joint statement, Pacific’s arguments that the 

court should compel responses remain vague and conclusory. Local Rule 251 provides in part 

that the joint statement shall specify with particularity “[t]he contentions of each party as to each 

contested issue, including a memorandum of each party’s respective arguments concerning the 

issues in dispute and the legal authorities in support thereof.” L.R. 251(c)(3). In the joint 

statement, Pacific argued as follows regarding interrogatory numbers 7–15: 

Furthermore, the Court should compel Plaintiff to serve amended 

responses to the corresponding Interrogatories, which Plaintiff 

likewise failed to answer. Those responses should be complete and 

detailed, and specify all facts that support Plaintiff’s contentions. 

To the extent Plaintiff chooses to identify business records under 

FRCP 33(d), it must identify the specific documents in which the 

facts are to be found. 

ECF No. 69 at 22–23. Pacific failed to set forth with particularity any argument or legal authority 

in support of its request to compel further responses to interrogatory numbers 7–15. Indeed, 

Pacific failed to provide the amended responses submitted by CCIC in the joint statement, which 

would have enabled the court to make a more informed decision regarding the reasonableness of 

CCIC’s responses. See Tate Decl. Ex. B, ECF No. 71. While Pacific pointed out in the instant 

motion that CCIC’s amended response to, for example, interrogatory number 9 identifies over 

11,500 pages of documents, ECF No. 80 at 6, this interrogatory-specific argument was not 

sufficiently articulated in the joint statement as required by the Local Rules. While Pacific 

addressed some of the individual interrogatories in the joint statement, Pacific did not meet its 

burden of informing the court, for each disputed response to interrogatory numbers 7–15, why 

CCIC’s responses were not justified. As the court stated in its order, “[t]he 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.” ECF No. 79 at 

16. Accordingly, Pacific’s motion for reconsideration of the court’s order regarding interrogatory 

numbers 7–15 is DENIED. 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 87 Filed 12/15/14 Page 3 of 6
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. Deadline for CCIC to Serve Amended Responses 

 Next, Pacific requests clarification regarding CCIC’s deadline for serving amended 

responses. Pacific’s request is GRANTED. To the extent CCIC has not responded, CCIC will be 

ordered to serve amended responses within fourteen days from the date of this order. 

C. Request for Costs for Filing the Motion 

 Finally, Pacific seeks clarification regarding whether it is entitled to its costs for bringing 

the motion to compel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37. ECF No. 80 at 7. 

 On August 15, 2014, Pacific filed its motion to compel under Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 36(a)(6) and 37(a). ECF No. 68. The parties filed a joint statement on September 3, 

2014 setting forth their contentions regarding their discovery dispute. ECF No. 69. Pacific also 

submitted a proposed order via e-mail to the court. The proposed order included the following 

paragraph: “Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5), PCS shall be awarded its costs in making the 

Motion.” Pacific did not present any information in the joint statement regarding monetary 

sanctions, including the amount of fees, the number of hours expended on the motion or Pacific’s 

counsel’s hourly rate. CCIC made the following argument regarding costs in the joint statement: 

In its proposed order PCS requests an award of costs pursuant to 

FRCP 37(a)(5). PCS doesn’t disclose the costs requested or 

attempt to justify whatever those costs might be. This entire motion 

by PCS was premature and unnecessary, and the primary order that 

PCS seeks, that the Court order objections and denials of requests 

for admissions be deemed admissions, isn’t legally or factually 

supported. PCS had determined to bring the motion prior to the 

telephone meet and confer. Tate Decl. While the telephone 

conference was fairly long, it was only long because counsel for 

CCIC truly wanted to meet and confer, whereas counsel for PCS 

quickly after 10-15 minutes inquired whether there was agreement 

that the meet and confer had been satisfied. Counsel for CCIC 

responded no, that there was a lot more to meet and confer about. 

Tate Decl. 

ECF No. 69 at 46. 

While Pacific did not provide an affidavit supporting a request for a fee award with the 

joint statement, it provided one with the instant motion for reconsideration. Pacific estimates that 

it expended approximately $7,000 in bringing its motion to compel. Johnson Decl. ¶ 4, ECF No. 

80 at 10. CCIC opposes Pacific’s request for clarification, arguing that the court discussed costs 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 87 Filed 12/15/14 Page 4 of 6
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

and Pacific did not meet and confer in good faith. ECF No. 81 at 2. Pacific is correct in that the 

court did not address whether fees would be awarded in its order on Pacific’s motion to compel. 

Accordingly, Pacific’s request for clarification is GRANTED. 

 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5) provides that if the court grants a motion to 

compel discovery, it “must” order the non-moving party to pay the moving party’s “reasonable 

expenses incurred in making the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). However, the Rule 

recognizes a number of exceptions, such as where a motion to compel “is granted in part and 

denied in part, the court . . . may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable 

expenses for the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C). Accordingly, the determination of the 

propriety of awarding attorneys’ fees is within the discretion of the court. The Local Rules are 

not explicit with regard to when a motion for an award of fees under Rule 37 must be brought. 

 Here, Pacific argues that the court should clarify whether it is entitled to costs for bringing 

its motion to compel, which was granted in part and denied in part. Pacific’s counsel estimates 

his firm expended approximately $7,000 in fees and expenses based upon 37 hours of work at 

$175 per hour plus expenses of approximately $500. Johnson Decl. ¶ 4. Pacific’s counsel states 

that its “formal request for fees will be based on actual invoices sent to the client for payment.” 

Id. Pacific further argues that “considering that of the 17 Requests at issue, the Court granted 

relief as to 10 (i.e., ~59%), [Pacific] is willing to accept an award of 50% of its costs.” ECF No. 

80 at 8. In light of the court’s order granting in part and denying in part Pacific’s motion to 

compel, the court is inclined to apportion Pacific’s reasonable expenses for the motion after 

giving CCIC an opportunity to be heard.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Pacific shall have seven 

days from the date of this order to file a letter brief in support of its request for expenses, not to 

exceed four pages. Within seven days thereafter, CCIC may file a reply letter brief, not to exceed 

 

1

 While CCIC has on two separate occasions addressed Pacific’s request for fees, the court finds 

it has not been afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond. First, when CCIC opposed 

Pacific’s fee request in the joint statement, Pacific had not yet articulated or itemized the amount 

of fees sought. Second, CCIC’s opposition to the instant motion for reconsideration is based on 

Pacific’s request for clarification, which states Pacific will file a “formal request for fees.” 

Johnson Decl. ¶ 4. Pacific’s request suggests that it is merely seeking permission from the court 

to file a subsequent “formal” request for expenses incurred in connection with the motion to 

compel. For these reasons, the court will provide CCIC an additional opportunity to be heard on 

the matter of Pacific’s request for expenses. 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 87 Filed 12/15/14 Page 5 of 6
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

four pages. The request for expenses will thereafter stand submitted. 

CONCLUSION 

 For these reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Pacific’s motion for reconsideration, ECF No. 80, is GRANTED IN PART AND 

DENIED IN PART as set forth in this order; 

 2. To the extent CCIC has not served amended responses as ordered by the court on 

September 17, 2014, CCIC is ordered to serve amended responses within fourteen days from the 

date of this order; and 

 3. Pacific shall have seven days from the date of this order to file a letter brief in 

support of its request for expenses incurred in connection with the motion to compel, not to 

exceed four pages. Within seven days thereafter, CCIC may file a reply letter brief, not to exceed 

four pages. 

DATED: December 12, 2014 

Case 2:13-cv-01378-WBS-AC Document 87 Filed 12/15/14 Page 6 of 6