Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05025-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Other 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLORIA GRENING WOLK,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

PHILIP R. GREEN,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-5025 BZ

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

Before me is plaintiff’s motion to compel regarding

defendant’s responses to her revised interrogatories, requests

for admission and requests for production of documents. For

the reasons discussed, plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART

AND DENIED IN PART.

 Generally, plaintiff takes issue with defendant’s

excessive use of boilerplate objections. As I explained

during the September 27, 2007 discovery telephone conference

regarding plaintiff’s motion to compel, I disregard 

///

/// 

///

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 97 Filed 10/29/07 Page 1 of 7
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 “Boilerplate, generalized objections are inadequate

and tantamount to not making any objection at all.” Walker v.

Lakewood Condo. Owners Ass'n, 186 F.R.D. 584, 587 (C.D. Cal.

1999). 

2

boilerplate objections.1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(b)(1) requires that a

party objecting to an interrogatory “shall state the reasons

for objection and shall answer to the extent the

interrogatory is not objectionable.” All grounds for

objection must be “stated with specificity” or the objection

is waived unless the court excuses the party’s failure to

object “for good cause shown.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 33(b)(4). 

Defendant frequently failed to state with specificity his

grounds for objection or show good cause for his failure to

do so. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant’s

boilerplate objections are stricken.

Similarly, a party responding to a request for admission

must respond with an: admission; denial; or “set forth in

detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully

admit or deny the matter.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 36(a). If the

responding party is unable to admit or deny the request

because of lack of sufficient information, the responding

party must state that he or she has made a “reasonable

inquiry and that the information known or readily obtainable

by the party is insufficient to enable the party to admit or

deny.” Id. 

In response to many of plaintiff’s requests for

production of documents, defendant produced the entire

litigation file. Plaintiff has not shown that the litigation

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 97 Filed 10/29/07 Page 2 of 7
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

file was not produced as it was kept in the normal course of

business. See Schwarzer, et al., Federal Civil Procedure

Before Trial, § 11:1943-44 (Rutter 2007). Nor has plaintiff

shown that the documents produced were so voluminous or so

disorganized that she cannot tell what they are. Plaintiff’s

request for an order compelling defendant to identify or

organize the documents to respond to specific requests is not

necessary. 

Defendant’s discovery responses are also replete with

attorney-client, work product and privacy objections. 

Defendant does not provide a privilege log or sufficiently

describe why the discovery propounded is privileged. The

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure require: 

a party withhold[ing] information otherwise

discoverable under these rules by claiming that

it is privileged or subject to protection as

trial-preparation material, the party shall

make the claim expressly and shall describe the

nature of the documents, communications, or

things not produced or disclosed in a manner

that, without revealing information itself

privileged or protected, will enable other

parties to assess the applicability of the

privilege or protection.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Rule 26(b)(5) is commonly

satisfied by filing a privilege log. Blanket refusals or

boilerplate objections are insufficient to assert privilege,

so I have disregarded such assertions. See Burlington

Northern & Santa Fe Rwy. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 408 F.3d

1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005).

During the September 27, 2007 discovery telephone

conference, I granted plaintiff leave to file a memorandum in

support of her motion to compel setting forth the specific

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 97 Filed 10/29/07 Page 3 of 7
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 Plaintiff did not file or provide me with court

copies of pages 3 or 5 of defendant’s responses to her revised

requests for admissions. As such, I am unable to issue an

order regarding requests 4 - 8 or 11- 14. (On October 5, 2007,

plaintiff filed three different versions of her motion to

compel. The missing pages were not attached as exhibits to

those filings.) 

3 As I noted during the September 27, 2007 telephone

conference, documents filed with a court are not protected by a

right of privacy or attorney client privilege.

4

discovery responses at issue. See Third Discovery Order,

Sept. 28, 2007, Docket No. 84. I will now address the

adequacy of the responses specifically addressed by

plaintiff.

Plaintiff specifically discusses defendant’s responses

to her revised interrogatories numbers 1 - 8 and 9 - 17;

revised requests for admissions numbers 1, 2, 4 -9, 11 - 14,

16 - 29, and 332; and requests for production of documents

numbers 1, 8 - 11, 14, 16, 18, 23, and 25 -27. 

It is HEREBY ORDERED THAT plaintiff’s motion to compel

is resolved as follows. I GRANT plaintiff’s motion with

respect to interrogatory numbers 1, 4 - 5 (limiting response

to the years 2000 - 2006), 8 (response is unintelligible and

inadequate) and 13; request for admission numbers 25, 27, and

29 (response is evasive); and request for production of

documents numbers 1, 8, 11, 18 (inconsistent response as to

whether documents exist), and 243

 - 27 (defendant to produce

documents for the years 2000 - 2006). I DENY plaintiff’s 

motion to compel further responses to interrogatory numbers

///

///

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 97 Filed 10/29/07 Page 4 of 7
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 An interrogatory inquiring as to basis of responses

to requests for admissions is treated as an interrogatory with

subparts [with each request for admission inquired to counts as

a single interrogatory]. See Safeco of America v. Rawstron, 181

F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D. Cal. 1998).

5

2, 3, 6 (relevancy and privacy objections sustained), 74

, 9,

10, 11, 12, and 14 (defendant is admonished that he has a

duty to supplement discovery and disclosures pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)); request for admission

numbers 1, 2, 20 - 24, 26, 28 and 33; and request for

production of documents numbers 9, 10, 14, 16, and 23. 

Interrogatory numbers 15 - 17 and request for admissions

numbers 16 - 19 will be addressed at the December 5, 2007

hearing on the motion to compel. 

Plaintiff also seeks an order compelling defendant to

comply with the initial disclosure requirement to provide a

complete copy of liability insurance policies as required by

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(D), (as well as

defendant’s alleged failure to respond to her second set of

requests for admissions). These matters are not

appropriately before me at this time. Plaintiff has failed

to comply my Order Scheduling Jury Trial and Pretrial Matters

(Docket No. 46) which sets forth the process by which parties

bring discovery disputes before the Court. I again admonish

plaintiff that failure to comply with my orders and the Civil

Local Rules may result in the imposition of sanctions. 

Plaintiff also requests that her deposition and all

other defensive discovery be deferred until after defendant

provides further amended discovery responses that comport

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 97 Filed 10/29/07 Page 5 of 7
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 Defense counsel attached a copy a motion to compel

plaintiff’s deposition to the September 20, 2007 letter as an

exhibit. 

6 Plaintiff’s deposition did not go forward as ordered. 

In her October 24, 2007 letter to the court, plaintiff states

that her deposition will go forward on November 14, 2007. 

6

with my order. On September 20, 2007, counsel for defendant

filed a letter requesting a telephone discovery conference

regarding plaintiff’s refusal to present for deposition.5 On

September 27, 2007, I conducted a telephone conference with

the parties to address plaintiff’s refusal to present for

deposition and the instant motion to compel. Plaintiff

agreed to present for deposition and I ordered that her

deposition be completed by October 8, 2007.6 As I explained

during the September 27, 2007 telephone discovery conference,

plaintiff’s deposition is not tied to the propriety of

defendant’s discovery responses. Accordingly, plaintiff’s

request that her deposition and all other defensive discovery

be deferred until defendant provides complete discovery

responses is DENIED. 

Plaintiff also requests reimbursement for the expenses

of filing the motion to compel, purchasing devices to record

the meet and confer telephone conferences and Federal Express

costs. Additionally, plaintiff asks me to impose sanctions

against defendant. Although, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

37(a)(4) does provide for an award of expenses against a

losing party who was not substantially justified in opposing

a motion to compel, the Civil Local Rules require that

motions for sanctions must be filed separately. See Civil

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 97 Filed 10/29/07 Page 6 of 7
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

7 Plaintiff’s request that defendant provide amended

responses within 3 calendar days of this order is unreasonable. 

7

L.R. 37-3 and 7-8(a). As such, plaintiff’s request for

reimbursement of expenses and for sanctions against defendant

is DENIED. However, defendant is cautioned that if he

continues to respond to discovery requests as has in the

past, sanctions are likely to be imposed.

On October 24, 2007, plaintiff filed motion requesting

leave to file a reply to defendant’s opposition. Further

briefing is unnecessary and her request is DENIED. Generally,

I will notify the parties if further briefing is required.

Defendant is ORDERED to serve amended discovery

responses and further documents that comport with this order

by November 14, 2007.7

Dated: October 29, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\WOLK\Order Granting in Part P's Motion to Compel.wpd

Case 3:06-cv-05025-BZ Document 97 Filed 10/29/07 Page 7 of 7