Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02558/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02558-20/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DALE M. WALLIS, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. 2:08-cv-2558 WBS GGH

vs.

CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Presently pending on this court’s law and motion calendar for November 14,

2012, is plaintiffs’ motion to deem admitted their requests for admissions (“RFAs”), set one, and

for sanctions. The motion was originally filed on October 10, 2012 and noticed for hearing on

November 1, 2012, but was vacated by order of October 30, 2012 for failure to file a joint

statement in accordance with E. D. Local Rule 251. During a November 1, 2012 hearing on

defendants’ motion, the court re-set the hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for November 14, 2012 and

directed the parties to file a joint statement by November 12, 2012.1

\\\\\

Plaintiff’s counsel stated at hearing her view that no joint statement was necessary 1

because her motion was one for sanctions, i.e., to have requests for admissions admitted because

the stated objections were insufficient. However, the motion to address the sufficiency of

objections to requests for admissions is a motion made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 (a)(6), not

Rule 37. As such it is not a motion for “sanctions.” In any event, once the undersigned stated in

open court that a joint statement was necessary, that was the end of the matter concerning

whether a joint statement was necessary.

1

Case 2:08-cv-02558-WBS-AC Document 175 Filed 11/13/12 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

Based on the parties’ failure to comply with Rule 251, a situation which the

undersigned finds more attributable to plaintiffs’ counsel than defendants’, plaintiffs’ motion is

vacated from the calendar for November 14, 2012.

 As of Friday, November 9, 2012 at 5:00, when defendants filed objections to the

November 14, 2012 hearing, plaintiffs had not submitted a completed joint statement to

defendants (complete except for defendants’ arguments). The incomplete statement was a

skeletal introduction and reiteration of the discovery requests at issue – all of them. It is

incomprehensible why plaintiffs’ counsel did not simply make her argument in that incomplete

draft joint statement sent to defendants on November 7, 2012, as the relevance and/or inability to

respond issues are collective arguments that can be made to all outstanding RFAs. By not

sending the complete statement on November 7th, plaintiff’s counsel simply set up the scenario

which allowed defendants to drag their feet again. Ms. Mendoza herself admitted in her e-mails

to defendants that plaintiffs’ position was essentially the same as set forth in their motion. That

being the case, how hard would it have been to simply incorporate the arguments? To the extent

that plaintiffs had something else to add to their argument, Ms. Mendoza set up a situation where

she, as counsel for the moving party, could get to wait to make her argument after seeing

defendants’ response, which is not appropriate. Finally, it should be noted that at the November

1st hearing pertaining to scheduling of this matter, defendants requested a date certain for the

transmission of the joint statement from plaintiffs to them, but Ms. Mendoza stated that such was

not necessary and she would get the statement to defendants in plenty of time. As a result,

plaintiffs have now filed a “joint statement” which contains no complete-in-itself argument by

plaintiffs or defendants.

Defendants’ objections, on the other hand, are quite possibly a passive aggressive

response to the district court’s order refusing to stay the action because of the liquidation

activities in New York. Any argument that defense counsel may not be able to find someone on

behalf of the client to respond to discovery is questionable in light of the fact that this discovery

2

Case 2:08-cv-02558-WBS-AC Document 175 Filed 11/13/12 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

was first propounded sometime before July 30, 2012, long before Super Storm Sandy arrived on 2

the scene, and defense counsel is presumably being compensated, so there must be someone in

charge of the “liquidating” insurance companies. However, whether or not the defendants’

arguments are well taken or simply a stall tactic, the court’s order for a joint statement was not to

be ignored.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to deem admitted their requests for admissions (“RFAs”), set

one, and for sanctions, filed October 10, 2012, (dkt. no. 150), is VACATED; and

2. The hearing on plaintiffs’ motion is VACATED from the calendar for

November 14, 2012.

DATED: November 13, 2012

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:076:Wallis2558.vac.wpd

 Plaintiffs’ motion sets forth a convoluted procedural history and does not state when 2

this discovery was propounded, but does state that defendants received the RFAs on July 30,

2012. (Dkt. no. 151 at n. 3.)

3

Case 2:08-cv-02558-WBS-AC Document 175 Filed 11/13/12 Page 3 of 3