Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01527/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01527-1/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 STATE OF AMERICA, for the use CASE NO. CV F 05-1527 OWW LJO

of EXCELSIOR ELEVATOR, INC.,

Plaintiff, ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

COMPEL INTERROGATORY RESPONSES

vs. AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION

CONSTRUCTION CONCEPTS, INC. et al, 

Defendant.

 /

Plaintiff moves to compel defendant Construction Concepts, Inc. and defendant Safeco Insurance

Co. to answer interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Plaintiff also asks for $975 in

sanctions. No timely opposition has been filed pursuant to Local Rule 37-251. Therefore, the hearing

set for August 25, 2006 was vacated and the matter was hereby submitted on the pleadings. Having

considered the moving papers, as well as the Court’s file, the Court issues the following order. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

 A subcontract was signed between Plaintiff and Defendant to take out an old elevator and install

a new elevator, elevator piston (underground) at the Naval Facilities Eng. Command, China Lake; to do

so, a bigger hole was needed but after opening up the shaft, an old piston was leaking underground and

extra work (environmental report, clean up, extended monitoring) was required. Extended time was

needed to complete work due to discovery of changed conditions. Plaintiff did the work and has not

been fully paid.

Defendants claim they are entitled to an offset for delay damages caused by Plaintiff’s late

Case 1:05-cv-01527-OWW -TAG Document 27 Filed 08/23/06 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

2

completion of work. As to the claim for extended monitoring, this was work already covered by the

original contract or a previous change order; or alternatively was not approved by defendant as to cost

or service at any time and is therefore not recoverable. 

ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

Discovery Standard

Parties seeking discovery are entitled to all information "reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence." F.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).

Compelling Interrogatory Responses

The party answering interrogatories must furnish “such information as is available to the party.”

F.R.Civ.P. 33(a). F.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(1) requires interrogatories to 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.”

F.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.” F.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(5). 

“It is well established that a failure to object to discovery requests within the time required

constitutes a waiver of any objection.” Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468,

1473 (9 Cir. 1992) (citing Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1160 (9 Cir. 1981)). The failure to th th

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 protective order.” F.R.Civ.P. 37(d). An “evasive

or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response is to be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or

respond.” F.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3).

The interrogatories consist of 21 questions that ask defendants to identify facts, persons with

knowledge, and documents related to the claims in the case. The first set of interrogatories propounded

is reasonable. 

No response has ever been served on plaintiff. Defendants make no attempt to explain their

failure to respond to and disregard of plaintiff’s legitimate discovery. Plaintiff is entitled to complete,

straightforward answers, without objections, to the interrogatories.

Case 1:05-cv-01527-OWW -TAG Document 27 Filed 08/23/06 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

3

Compelling Document Production

F.R.Civ.P. 34(a) 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 “The 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, in which event the reasons for the objection shall be stated.”

A party is obliged 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. F.R.Civ.P. 34(a);Norman

Rockwell Int’l Corp. v. H. Wolfe Iron & Metal Co., 576 F.Supp. 511, 512 (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 inspection requested.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

34(b).

The documents requests consist of 41 requests asking for construction project documents, and

documents related to defendants’ 27 affirmative defenses. No response to theRequest and no document

production have been provided. The Requests are appropriate and therefore should be compelled to be

produced. 

Request for Sanctions

Plaintiff requests $975 in sanctions against both defendants jointly and severally. The sanctions

are for 5 hours for attorney time in preparing this motion, including one hour of time for the hearing on

the motion, at $195 per hour.

If a motion to compel discovery responses 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 effort to obtain the . . . discovery without court action .

. . or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” F.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(4)(A). The burden

is on the losing party to affirmatively demonstrate that its position was substantially justified. F.R.Civ.P.

Case 1:05-cv-01527-OWW -TAG Document 27 Filed 08/23/06 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

4

37(a)(4), Advisory Comm. Notes (1970). 

Plaintiff ignored defendants’ attempts to obtain interrogatory responses without this Court’s order

to compel. No circumstances appear to render unjust an award of plaintiff’s expenses for its motion to

compel. The hourly rate and number of hours are reasonable, except only 4 hours of time will be

awarded because a hearing will be unnecessary in this motion. Sanctions are $780.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion to compel as follows:

1. To ORDER defendant Construction Concepts, Inc. and defendant Safeco Insurance Co.,

no later than 10 days from the service of this order, to serve complete, straightforward answers, without

objections, to plaintiff’s interrogatories; and

2. To ORDER defendant Construction Concepts, Inc. and defendant Safeco Insurance Co.,

no later than 10 days from the service of this order, to serve complete, straightforward responses, without

objections, and produce documents in response to plaintiff’s request for production of documents; and

3. To GRANT the request for sanctions against defendant Construction Concepts, Inc. and

defendant Safeco Insurance Co., jointly and severally, in the amount of $780 payable within 30 days

from the service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 22, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01527-OWW -TAG Document 27 Filed 08/23/06 Page 4 of 4