Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00649/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00649-5/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RLC INDUSTRIES CO. and ROSEBURG 

FOREST PRODCUTS CO.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

LIBERTY INSURANCE 

CORPORATION,

Defendant.

No. 2:23-cv-0649 TLN DB

ORDER

As explained by the parties, this “insurance case concerns whether fees incurred by 

[plaintiff] in defending against” lawsuits related to the Mill Fire were reasonable and necessary. 

(JS (ECF No. 46-1) at 2.) On April 22, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion to compel supplemental

responses along with the parties’ Joint Statement. (ECF No. 46.) The motion is noticed for 

hearing before the undersigned on May 8, 2024, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 52.) 

Review of the Joint Statement finds that at issue are defendant’s responses to two interrogatories: 

Interrogatory No. 6 and Interrogatory No. 10. With respect to Interrogatory No. 10, defendant 

asserts that plaintiff’s arguments found in the Joint Statement “were not . . . the subject of . . . 

telephonic meet and confer conferences.” (JS (ECF No. 46-1) at 17.) 

////

Case 2:23-cv-00649-TLN-SCR Document 54 Filed 05/02/24 Page 1 of 3
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

“Meeting and conferring saves time and money for all involved—if done correctly.” 

Mollica v. Cnty. of Sacramento, No. 2:19-cv-2017 KJM DB, 2022 WL 15053335, at *1 (E.D. 

Cal. Oct. 26, 2022). In order to give the parties an opportunity to fully exhaust their meet and 

confer efforts the May 8, 2024 hearing will be continued. To further aid the parties’ meeting and 

conferring, the undersigned offers some preliminary thoughts after reviewing the Joint Statement. 

These thoughts are by no means conclusive, nor do they reflect the merits of the motion to 

compel.

With respect to Interrogatory No 6., plaintiff seeks “all facts” that support defendant’s 

contention that plaintiff failed to mitigate damages. (JS (ECF No. 46-1) at 9.) Plaintiff takes 

issue with defendant’s response, in part, relying on “[f]or example” as opposed to stating all facts 

known to defendant. (Id. at 10.) This argument seems to ring true. See generally Stillwagon v. 

City of Delaware, Case No. 2:14-cv-807, 2:14-cv-1606, 2016 WL 6248956, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 

26, 2016) (“Courts have frequently ordered a party to provide a more complete answer to 

interrogatories when the initial answer does not respond fully to the question being asked.”); 

Hansel v. Shell Oil Corp., 169 F.R.D. 303, 305 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (“Parties must provide true, 

explicit, responsive, complete, and candid answers to interrogatories.”).

Interrogatory No. 10 asks defendant to identify law firms retained by defendant to defend 

actions similar to actions like the Mill Fire. (JS (ECF No. 46-1) at 14.) Defendant argues 

responding to this interrogatory would result in an “extreme burden.” (Id. at 18.) In opposing 

discovery on the grounds of burdensomeness, “a party has the burden to show facts justifying 

their objection by demonstrating that the time or expense involved in responding to requested 

discovery is unduly burdensome. This imposes an obligation to provide sufficient detail in terms 

of time, money and procedure required to produce the requested documents.” Cory v. Aztec Steel 

Bldg., Inc., 225 F.R.D. 667, 672 (D. Kan. 2005) (quotation omitted). Although defendant has 

provided a declaration in support, that declaration does not appear to demonstrate the time, 

money and procedure required to respond to the interrogatory. 

////

////

Case 2:23-cv-00649-TLN-SCR Document 54 Filed 05/02/24 Page 2 of 3
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

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The May 8, 2024 hearing of plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 46) is continued to 

June 13, 2024, at 10:00 am via Zoom;.

2. On or before May 23, 2024, the parties shall meet and confer, in person or via 

telephone or video conferencing, with respect to plaintiff’s motion to compel; and

3. On or before May 30, 2024, the parties shall file a Joint Statement or a notice of 

withdrawal of the motion.

Dated: May 2, 2024

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.civil/rlc0649.mtc.cont.m&c.ord

Case 2:23-cv-00649-TLN-SCR Document 54 Filed 05/02/24 Page 3 of 3