Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01527/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01527-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 130
Nature of Suit: Miller Act
Cause of Action: 40:270 Miller Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, for the

use of EXCELSIOR ELEVATOR, INC. 

Plaintiff,

v.

CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTS, INC., 

etc., et al.,

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 1:05-cv-01527 OWW TAG

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 

AND AWARDING SANCTIONS 

(Doc. 31) 

Plaintiff moves to compel defendants Construction Concepts, Inc. (“CCI”) and Safeco

Insurance (“Safeco”) to provide without objection answers to interrogatories and responses to

requests for production of documents. Plaintiff also requests an order compelling defendant

CCI’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b) designee to appear to complete his deposition. Plaintiff also requests

an order requiring defendants CCI and Safeco to pay $750 to plaintiff within 10 days, and to pay

and additional $780 within 30 days. No timely opposition has been filed pursuant to Local Rule

37-251. Therefore, the hearing set for in this matter was vacated and the motion was deemed

submitted on the pleadings. The court has read and considered the moving papers, as well as the 

court’s file, and issues the following order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

This case involves a construction dispute among plaintiff, defendant CCI, and the latter’s

bonding company - defendant Safeco. Plaintiff and defendant CCI entered into a subcontract

wherein plaintiff agreed to remove an existing elevator and install a new elevator and an

Case 1:05-cv-01527-OWW -TAG Document 44 Filed 11/08/06 Page 1 of 8
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

underground elevator piston. During the course of the job, plaintiff discovered that a piston was

leaking , which in turn required extra work and additional time to complete the work. Plaintiff

has performed the extra work, but has not been paid for it. Defendant CCI claims an offset for

delay damages. 

 On August 2, 2006, plaintiff moved to compel responses to special interrogatories and

document requests propounded upon defendants CCI and Safeco. (Docs. 18 - 24). On August

23, 2006, the Honorable Lawrence J. O’ Neill granted plaintiff’s motion and ordered both

defendants to provide without objection, compete discovery responses within 10 days from the

service of the court’s order, and to pay to plaintiff the sanctions of $780 within 30 days from the

service of the order. (Doc. 27) . The court’s electronic docket in this action reflects that the

court’s order was served on August 23, 2006. (Doc. 27). The court takes judicial notice of the 

docket entry and the date of service reflected therein. 

Defendants CCI and Safeco failed to provide discovery responses within 10 days as

ordered. Instead, defendant CCI served discovery responses on September 22, 2006, and

defendant Safeco served discovery responses on October 10, 2006. Defendants’ counsel

forwarded an $800 check to plaintiff’s counsel on September 22, 2006. Accordingly, CCI’s

discovery responses were more than two weeks late, and Safeco’s discovery responses was more

than one month late. The only explanation that either defendant provided for failing to meet the

Court’s deadline, was defense counsel’s statement that defendant Safeco’s person most

knowledgeable had been vacationing. 

On July 28, 2006, plaintiff commenced the deposition of defendant CCI’s person most

knowledgeable. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b). Plaintiff was unable to conclude the deposition on July

28 because defendant CCI failed to produce documents it had been requested to produce.

Counsel for plaintiff and defendants agreed to resume the deposition at a mutually convenient

date and time. Defendant CCI failed to respond to plaintiff’s request to resume the deposition,

and thereafter failed to produce its Fed. R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) designee for deposition.

Case 1:05-cv-01527-OWW -TAG Document 44 Filed 11/08/06 Page 2 of 8
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

ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

1. Discovery Standard.

Parties seeking discovery are entitled to all information “reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).

2. Compelling Interrogatory Responses.

A party answering interrogatories must furnish “such information as is available to the

party.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(1). Rule 33(b)(1) requires that interrogatories

be answered “separately and fully in writing under oath, unless it is objected to in which event

the objecting party shall state the reasons for objection and shall answer to the extent the

interrogatory is not objectionable.” Interrogatory answers must be “signed by the person making

them, and the objections signed by the attorney making them.” Fed. R.Civ. P. 33(b)(2). The

propounding party may seek an order to compel further responses regarding “an objection to or

other failure to answer an interrogatory.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(b)(5). Failure to object to discovery

requests in a timely fashion constitutes a waiver of any objection. Richmark Corp. v. Timber

Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992)(citing Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154,

1160 (9th Cir. 1981). Failure to respond to interrogatories “may not be excused on the ground

that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has a pending motion for

a protective order.” Fed. R.Civ. P. 37(d). Providing a evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer,

or response is the equivalent of providing no disclosure, answer, or response. Fed. R. Civ, Proc.

37(a)(3).

In this instance, defendant CCI has not explained why it failed to respond to discovery in

a timely fashion, and defendant Safeco’s excuse for its untimely discovery responses was that its

person most knowledgeable was “on vacation.” Defendant Safeco’s claim that its person most

knowledgeable was “on vacation” does not excuse or justify Safeco’s more than one-month delay

in complying with the Court’s order. Plaintiff is entitled to an order compelling all of the

///

Case 1:05-cv-01527-OWW -TAG Document 44 Filed 11/08/06 Page 3 of 8
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

discovery it requested, including the interrogatories - which have already been deemed

reasonable and legitimate. (Doc. 27). 

3. Compelling Document Production.

Rule 34(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a requesting party to ask for

documents “which are in the possession, custody, or control of the party upon whom the request

is served.” Rule 34(b) states that “[t]he request shall set forth, either by individual item or by

category, the items to be inspected, and describe each with reasonable particularity.” Rule 34(b)

also requires a written response to a request for production to “state, with respect to each item or

category, that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested unless the request is

objected to.... ” A party is required to produce all specified relevant and nonprivileged

documents or other things which are in its “possession, custody or control” on the date specified

in the request,.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a); Norman Rockwell Int’l. Corp. v. H. Wolfe Iron & Metal

Co., 576 F.Supp. 511, 412 (W.D. Pa. 1983). The propounding party may seek an order for

further disclosure regarding any objection to or other failure to respond to the request or any part

thereof, or any failure to permit inspections requested. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 34(b).

 In this instance, defendants have not explained why they failed to respond to discovery in

a timely fashion, after having been ordered to respond by the court. Plaintiff is entitled to an

order compelling all of the discovery it requested, including plaintiff’s requests for production of

documents - which have already been deemed appropriate. (Doc. 27).

4. Person Most Knowledgeable Deposition.

Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules ov Civil Procedure authorizes the depositions of

“persons most knowledgeable.” The rule provides that a party may “...name as the deponent a

public or private corporation ... and describe with reasonable particularity the matters on which

examination is requested. In that event, the organization so named shall designate one or more

officer, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to testify on its behalf, and

may set forth, for each person designated, the matters on which the person will testify.... The

Case 1:05-cv-01527-OWW -TAG Document 44 Filed 11/08/06 Page 4 of 8
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

persons so designated shall testify as to matters known or reasonably available to the

organization.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). 

In this instance, plaintiff has the right to depose the person(s) most knowledgeable for

defendant CCI. There is no evidence that defendants objected to the form or substance of the

notice of deposition, or the location or fact of the deposition, and there is no evidence of

impropriety with respect to plaintiff’s conduct of the deposition. Therefore, the deposition of

defendant CCI’s person most knowledgeable will be compelled. 

5. Request for Sanctions.

Plaintiff requests a joint and several award of sanctions against defendant CCI and Safeco

in the sum of $780. The sanctions requested are for four hours for attorney time in preparing this

motion, plus one hour of time for the hearing on the motion, at $195 per hour. Plaintiff,

understandably exasperated by defendants’ failure to comply with discovery requests and orders, 

also asks the court to fashion an appropriate remedy to compel discovery responses and allow

plaintiff to file an amended complaint, or in the absence of discovery responses, to strike the

defendants’ answers and enter default judgments against them. 

 If a motion to compel discovery is granted, “the court shall, after affording an opportunity

to be heard, require the party . . . whose conduct necessitated the motion or the party or attorney

advising such conduct or both of them to pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses

incurred in making the motion, including attorney’s fees, unless the court finds that the motion 

was filed without the movant’s first making a good faith to fort to obtain the . . . discovery 

without court action. . . or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 37(a)(4)(A). The burden is on the losing party to affirmatively demonstrate why its

opposition was substantially justified. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).

Defendants CCI and Safeco have repeatedly ignored plaintiff’s attempts to obtain timely

interrogatory responses and timely responses to requests for production of documents, failed to

comply with the discovery deadlines imposed by the court, and ignored plaintiff’s requests to

Case 1:05-cv-01527-OWW -TAG Document 44 Filed 11/08/06 Page 5 of 8
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

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(b)(2), if a party “fails to obey an order or provide or permit discovery” a court 1

“may make such orders in regard to the failure as are just,” including to:

A. Designate facts as established;

B. Refuse to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibit 

 the disobedient party from introducing designated matters in evidence;

6

complete the deposition of defendant Safeco’s person most knowledgeable. There are no

circumstances that appear to render unjust an award of plaintiff’s expenses for this motion to

compel. The hourly rate and the time incurred are reasonable, except that only four hours of time

will be awarded because a motion hearing is unnecessary. The court awards sanctions of $780

against defendants CCI and Safeco and in favor of plaintiff.

With respect to plaintiff’s request for an order striking defendants’ answers and entering

default judgments against them if they fail to provide discovery, the court acknowledges its

discretion to fashion appropriate orders in instances where a party fails to obey an order to

provide or permit discovery, as well as the logic of the conditional-order remedy suggested by

plaintiff. However, the court also takes into account that it appears that defendants CCI and

Safeco have provided discovery responses, although they were inexcusably late, and have

complied with at least a portion of the prior discovery order. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2). After

considering the totality of the circumstances, the court concludes that monetary sanctions and an

admonishment are appropriate, and declines (at this time) to recommend to the District Judge

assigned to this case that an order be issued conditionally striking defendants’ answers and

entering defendants’ default judgments. 

Defendants CCI and Safeco and their counsel are admonished that in the event

defendant CCI and/or defendant Safeco fail to comply with this Order in any fashion, a

recommendation will made to the District Judge assigned to this case that issue and/or

terminating sanctions be issued against defendant CCI and/or defendant Safeco, as the case

may be, for failure to obey a court order under Rule 37(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. Such sanctions may include an order striking the defendants’ answers and

entering default judgments against them. 

1

Case 1:05-cv-01527-OWW -TAG Document 44 Filed 11/08/06 Page 6 of 8
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

C. Strike out pleadings or parts thereof, stay further proceedings until an order is obeyed, or dismiss an 

 action, proceeding or any part thereof; or render judgment by default; and

D. Treat the failure to obey as a contempt of court. 

7

CONCLUSION AND ORDERS

For the forgoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to compel and for

monetary sanctions (Doc. 31), and makes the following ORDERS: 

1. Within 10 days from the date of service of this Order, defendant Construction

Concepts, Inc. and defendant Safeco Insurance Co., are to serve complete, straightforward

answers, without objections, to plaintiff’s’s interrogatories.

2. Within 10 days from the date of service of this Order, defendant Construction

Concepts, Inc. and defendant Safeco Insurance Co., are to serve complete, straightforward

responses, without objections, to plaintiff’s requests for production of documents.

3. Within 10 days from the date of service of this Order, defendant Construction

Concepts, Inc. and defendant Safeco Insurance Co., are to produce all documents in their

possession, custody and control, as described in plaintiff’s requests for production of documents.

4. Within 15 days from the date of service of this Order, or upon such later date as

Plaintiff shall reasonably designate in writing, defendant Construction Concepts, Inc. shall

produce its person(s) most knowledge for a deposition at a location designated in writing by

plaintiff’s counsel, and shall bring to such deposition all documents previously requested by

plaintiff.

5. Plaintiff’s request for monetary sanctions against defendants Construction Concepts,

Inc. and Safeco Insurance Co., is GRANTED in the amount of $780, and this sanction award is

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-01527-OWW -TAG Document 44 Filed 11/08/06 Page 7 of 8
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 8

joint and several. Accordingly, within 10 days from the date of service of this order, defendant

Construction Concepts, Inc. and defendant Safeco Insurance Co., shall pay to plaintiff the sum of

$780.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:05-cv-01527-OWW -TAG Document 44 Filed 11/08/06 Page 8 of 8