Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00045/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00045-1/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 - 07cv0045

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIDELITY & GUARANTY LIFE

INSURANCE CO.,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 07-0045-BTM(LSP)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL RESPONSES TO

INTERROGATORIES AND

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF

DOCUMENTS AND REQUEST FOR

SANCTIONS (38-1)

v.

JAMES ALBERTSON,

Defendant.

On November 9, 2007, Plaintiff Fidelity & Guaranty Life

Insurance Co. (hereafter “Plaintiff”) filed a Motion to Compel

Responses to Special Interrogatories, Requests for Production of

Documents and Request for Sanctions (hereafter “Motion”). On

November 15, 2007, Defendant James Albertson (hereafter “Defendant“)

filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion. On November 21, 2007,

Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendant’s Opposition. The Court,

having reviewed the Motion, Opposition and Reply, HEREBY GRANTS in

part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s Motion.

Factual Background

On September 11, 2007, the Court convened an Early Neutral

Evaluation Conference (hereafter “ENE”) in this action. Settlement

Case 3:07-cv-00045-MMA-WVG Document 48 Filed 11/26/07 Page 1 of 5
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 - 07cv0045

was not reached at the ENE, so the Court issued an Order Setting

Rule 26 Compliance (hereafter “Rule 26 Order”) After the ENE, the

Court instructed the parties to informally exchange the documents

that support their respective positions. In the Rule 26 Order, the

Court ordered that the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference be completed

by October 5, 2007 and a discovery plan be lodged with the Court on

or before October 15, 2007. On October 15, 2007, Plaintiff filed a

Joint Report of Conference of Counsel and Discovery Plan.

However, On April 10, 2007, counsel conducted the conference

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). On April 24, 2007, counsel

served their initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a).

(Declaration of Misty Murray in Support of Reply to Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion, Exs. A - D)

On June 12, 2007, Defendant began to conduct discovery.

[Declaration of Misty Murray in Support of Reply to Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Motion, Ex. E (Notice of Deposition of Mark Hunton, set

for July 27, 2007)]

On August 9, 2007, Plaintiff propounded on Defendant Special

Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents (hereafter

“discovery requests”). The responses to these discovery requests

were due on September 11, 2007.

Defendant requested that extensions of time be granted to him

in order to respond to the discovery requests. Plaintiff granted

Defendant’s requests for extensions of time to respond on at least

three separate occasions. The extensions granted were to October 9,

October 23, and November 13, 2007. To date, no responses to the

discovery requests have been received by Plaintiff. Therefore,

Plaintiff moves the Court to compel responses to the discovery

Case 3:07-cv-00045-MMA-WVG Document 48 Filed 11/26/07 Page 2 of 5
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 - 07cv0045

requests. Plaintiff also seeks its attorneys fees as sanctions for

having to make its Motion.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s Motion is improper until

after the completion of the initial disclosures and a discovery plan

has been developed. Therefore, Plaintiff’s discovery requests and

Motion to compel responses to them are premature. Defendant also

seeks sanctions for having to oppose Plaintiff’s Motion.

Analysis

A party may not seek discovery from any source before the

parties have conferred as required by Fed R. Civ. P 26(f). Fed. R.

Civ. P. 26(d)

On April 10, 2007, counsel conducted the conference mandated by

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f).

Therefore, Plaintiff’s discovery requests, propounded on 

August 9, 2007, were proper. While Defendant argues that

Plaintiff’s discovery requests and Motion to compel responses to

them, were premature, it does not appear that his position in this

regard was ever communicated to Plaintiff. Instead, on June 12,

2007, approximately two months before Plaintiff’s discovery requests

were served, Defendant himself began to conduct discovery. The

Court finds Defendant’s argument to be disingenuous. As a result,

Plaintiff’s Motion is GRANTED.

Therefore, on or before December 11, 2007, Defendant shall

respond to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories without objections,

other than objections based on attorney-client privilege and work

product. Fed R. Civ. P. 33(b)(4).

With regard to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of

Documents, on or before December 11, 2007, Defendant shall respond

Case 3:07-cv-00045-MMA-WVG Document 48 Filed 11/26/07 Page 3 of 5
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 - 07cv0045

to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents in accordance

with the Requests. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a), 37(a)(1)(B).

If Defendant does not provide the responses to Plaintiff’s

discovery requests on or before the date noted above, The Court will

issue sanctions against Defendant of $100.00 per day for every day

that the responses have not been provided to Plaintiff.

The Court warns Defendant that his failure to comply with his

discovery obligations in this case and as noted in this Order, may

subject him to further sanctions including the entry of a default

against him.

Sanctions

The Court, having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion, Defendant’s

Opposition, Plaintiff’s Reply, HEREBY GRANTS Plaintiff’s Request for

Sanctions and awards Plaintiff the sum of $750.00 for preparation of

its Motion and Reply. Defendant shall pay Plaintiff that amount

forthwith. Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

Conclusion

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Responses to Special

Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents is GRANTED.

Plaintiff’s Request for Sanctions is GRANTED in part and DENIED

in part.

\\

\\

\\

\\

\\

\\

\\

Case 3:07-cv-00045-MMA-WVG Document 48 Filed 11/26/07 Page 4 of 5
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 - 07cv0045

Defendant’s Request for Sanctions is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 26, 2007

Hon. Leo S. Papas

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00045-MMA-WVG Document 48 Filed 11/26/07 Page 5 of 5