Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08111/USCOURTS-azd-3_14-cv-08111-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Maria Rosario Francisco, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, ) 3:14-cv-8111 JWS

)

vs. ) ORDER AND OPINION

)

State Farm Mutual Automobile ) [Re: Motion at Docket 62]

Insurance Company, et al., ) 

)

Defendants. )

)

I. MOTION PRESENTED

At docket 62 defendant State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

(“State Farm”) moves for an order compelling plaintiffs Maria Rosario Francisco and

Catarino Celestino Francisco (“Plaintiffs’”) to respond to State Farm’s Second Set of

Interrogatories and Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Counsel for

State Farm has filed the required certificate of consultation at docket 62-1. Plaintiffs

respond at docket 64. State Farm replies at docket 67. Oral argument was requested

but would not assist the court.

Case 3:14-cv-08111-JWS Document 78 Filed 08/24/15 Page 1 of 4
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

II. BACKGROUND

The court has described the background giving rise to this litigation in detail in

the order at docket 69. Suffice it to say for present purposes that Plaintiffs are trying to

recover money from State Farm pursuant to an underinsured motorist clause in their

State Farm insurance policy in excess of the policy limit payment received from the

insurance company for the driver of the other auto involved in a 2008 auto accident. 

The other driver’s policy limit was very substantially less than the amount of the default 

judgment Plaintiff’s obtained against the other driver. Among other things, that

judgment includes a finding that Maria Francisco’s injuries have cost her a projected

income loss of $423,800 from her tamale making business.1

 The motion at bar arises

from State Farm’s attempt to obtain information relating to the extent of Plaintiffs’

damages. 

III. DISCUSSION

Copies of the Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Set of Requests for

Admission are found at docket 62-1. State Farm contends that Plaintiffs have simply

not responded to these discovery requests. Plaintiffs do not deny that they have not

responded to the specific discovery requests. Instead, they point to an email chain of

communications between counsel and various items referenced therein.

Plaintiffs’ communications making rather vague reference to materials available

is insufficient to comply with the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure governing how a litigant must respond to written interrogatories. Rule 33(b)

1Doc. 36-1 at 11.

-2-

Case 3:14-cv-08111-JWS Document 78 Filed 08/24/15 Page 2 of 4
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

provides: “Each interrogatory must, to the extent not objected to, be answered

separately and fully in writing under oath.” Plaintiffs have not done this.

With respect to the requests for production, State Farm’s complaint is that

Plaintiffs response “did not include any financial or business information related to

Plaintffs’ tamale making business.”2 Plaintiffs do not contend otherwise in their

response. Rather, they refer to communications that refer to the contents of a CD

containing unidentified “disclosure documents” and unidentified bank statements and

tax returns. This is too imprecise. What, if anything, in these materials relates to the

tamale making business is not explained. If there is information that pertains to income

from the tamale business in the materials provided, Plaintiffs must identify it so that it

can be reviewed and assessed. 

State Farm also seeks an award of attorneys’ fees. Rule 37(a) (5) provides that

where a discovery motion of the sort at bar is granted, the court must (with exceptions

not pertinent here) require the recalcitrant party to pay the moving party’s reasonable

expenses, including attorneys’ fees.

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the preceding discussion, State Farm’s motion at docket 62 is

GRANTED as follows: Plaintiffs shall fully respond to State Farm’s Second Set of

Interrogatories and State Farm’s Second Set of Request for Production within 14 days

from the date of this order; and Plaintiff’s shall pay State Farm’s reasonable attorneys’

fees in bringing the motion at docket 62. If the parties cannot stipulate to an amount to

2Doc. 62 at 6.

-3-

Case 3:14-cv-08111-JWS Document 78 Filed 08/24/15 Page 3 of 4
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

be paid to State Farm by Plaintiffs, then within 14 days from the date of this order, State

Farm shall file a properly supported motion for reasonable fees, and Plaintiffs shall

respond within 7 days after the motion is filed. No reply may be filed unless requested

by the court. 

DATED this 24th day of August 2015.

/s/ JOHN W. SEDWICK

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-4-

Case 3:14-cv-08111-JWS Document 78 Filed 08/24/15 Page 4 of 4