Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-00693/USCOURTS-casd-3_02-cv-00693-3/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 - 02cv0693

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE STATE

OF PENNSYLVANIA, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 02-CV-0693 BEN (CAB)

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO DEEM MATTERS

SET FORTH IN PLAINTIFF’S

REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION

ADMITTED

vs.

CITY OF SAN DIEGO,

Defendant.

Before the Court is the motion brought by Plaintiff Insurance Company of Pennsylvania

(“Plaintiff” or “ISOP”) regarding the sufficiency of the responses to ISOP’s Requests for

Admission Nos. 42, 61, 64 and 72, provided by Defendant City of San Diego (“Defendant” or “the

City”). The parties submitted letter briefs in support of their positions directly to chambers, and

the Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral

argument in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1).

ISOP contends that the City’s responses do not fairly meet the substance of the requested

admissions, are non-responsive and equivocal. ISOP further argues that the Court should deem the

subject matter of the requests admitted. The City contends that its responses were good faith

attempts to meet the substance of the requested admissions. The City argues that the requests as

drafted created unfair inferences if admitted. The City’s responses therefore included alternative 

language to clarify the matters to which the City could admit and to qualify or deny the remainder.

Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted the matters set forth in the requests is DENIED. The

Case 3:02-cv-00693-BEN-CAB Document 404 Filed 03/08/07 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

27

28

1The underlying state court litigation, still ongoing.

- 2 - 02cv0693

City is, however, ordered to supplement its response to Request No. 72. 

1. Request for Admission No. 42

Request No. 42 asks the City to “Admit that UNITED NATIONAL has not paid any sum in

payment of any finalized settlement in the De La Fuente cases1.”

The City responded: “In response to this request, the City admits there is no finalized

settlement in the De La Fuente cases.” 

 Both parties agree that a finalized settlement has not occurred in the De La Fuente cases. 

The request therefore appears to anticipate a future fact. Consequently, the request is premature

and the City’s response is adequate. If United National has paid any sum in anticipation of a

finalized settlement of the De La Fuente cases, such information is not within the possession,

control and custody of the City. Plaintiff’s motion to deem the matters set forth in this request

admitted is DENIED.

2. Request for Admission No. 61

Request No. 61 asks the City to “Admit that the CITY’s representative first notified ISOP

that the defense fees and costs in the De La Fuente cases exceeded $900,000 in June, 2001.”

The City responded: “Admitted that ISOP did not seek information as to the amount of the

City’s defense costs in Border before June 2001. In all other respects, the Request is denied.”

The City contends the request inaccurately implies an obligation on the part of the City to

notify ISOP of the defense fees and costs and therefore qualified its response to remove this

inference. The City admitted that the information about the amount of the City’s defense costs was

not exchanged before June 2001. The City denied the remainder of the request. ISOP has not

provided any basis for deeming the City’s denial of the remainder to be an admission that the

defense fees and costs in the De La Fuente cases exceeded $900,000 before June, 2001. Plaintiff’s

motion to deem admitted the matters set forth in this request is DENIED.

3. Request for Admission No. 64

Request No. 64 asks the City to “Admit that in July, 2001, the CITY’s representative first

sent ISOP representatives copies of the invoices (not remittance copies) for defense fees and costs

Case 3:02-cv-00693-BEN-CAB Document 404 Filed 03/08/07 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

27

28

- 3 - 02cv0693

in the De La Fuente cases evidencing exhaustion of a self insured retention.”

The City responded: “Admitted that ISOP did not seek information as to the amount of the

City’s defense costs in Border before June 2001. In all other respects, the Request is denied.”

The City contends the request inaccurately implies an obligation on the part of the City to

provide ISOP with evidence of exhaustion of its self-insurance retention. The City therefore again

qualified its response to remove the inference. The City admitted that the information about the

amount of the City’s defense costs was not exchanged before June 2001. The City denied the

remainder of the request. ISOP has not provided any basis for deeming the City’s denial to be an

admission that defense fees and costs in the De La Fuente cases evidenced exhaustion of a selfinsured retention. Plaintiff’s motion to deem admitted the matters set forth in this request is

DENIED.

4. Request for Admission No. 72

Request No. 72 asks the City to “Admit that the CITY’s representatives first provided

ISOP’s representatives with the case management conference questionnaire in the National

Enterprises case by a letter dated September 21, 2001.”

The City responded: “ISOP never sought to review the entire National Enterprises

pleadings, including the Case Management Questionnaire, prior to September 21, 2001.”

The City contends the request inaccurately implies an obligation on the part of the City to

provide ISOP with the National Enterprises Case Management Questionnaire, a public record. 

Therefore the City qualified its response to remove the inference. The City, however, neither

admitted nor denied the request. Plaintiff’s motion to deem the matters set forth in this request

admitted is DENIED. The City is ORDERED to supplement its response to either admit or deny

that the case management conference questionnaire in the National Enterprises case was

forwarded to ISOP by a letter dated September 21, 2001. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 8, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:02-cv-00693-BEN-CAB Document 404 Filed 03/08/07 Page 3 of 3