Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02395/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02395-3/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 06cv2395 WQH (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE CO., Civil No. 06cv2395 WQH (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER

RESPONSES TO DISCOVERY

v.

NICEFORO HERRERA, et al.,

Defendants.

On September 20, 2007, this Court held a telephonic discovery conference on Plaintiff’s motion

to compel further responses to discovery by Defendant Nicholas Fintzelberg. Scott Murch, Esq.,

appeared for Plaintiff. Seth Friedman, Esq., appeared for Defendant Fintzelberg. Having considered the

submissions of the parties and the arguments of counsel, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

Plaintiff moved to compel further responses to its Request for Admission Nos. 11-13,

propounded on Defendant Fintzelberg. Defendant Fintzelberg provided a qualified admission and

otherwise denied these requests. The Court finds no further response is necessary. The motion is

DENIED. 

Plaintiff moved to compel further responses to Interrogatories, Set One, Nos. 1-9. These

interrogatories were propounded in the form of contention interrogatories. Defendant Fintzelberg

objected on a number of grounds, including that the requests were premature. Those objections

notwithstanding, Defendant referred Plaintiff to his initial disclosures for the identity of persons, facts

and/or documents that may be responsive. No further response is necessary at this time. The motion is 

Case 3:06-cv-02395-WQH-CAB Document 47 Filed 09/20/07 Page 1 of 2
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 06cv2395 WQH (CAB)

DENIED. However, Defendant is cautioned that should additional responsive information come to his

attention, he should promptly supplement his disclosures.

Finally, Plaintiff moved to compel production of documents, specifically any liability insurance

policies of Defendant Fintzelberg in effect on March 11, 2006. Defendant objected in part because the

request was not relevant to the claims and defenses in this case. The objection is sustained. Defendant

has not made any claim against Plaintiff for defense costs or indemnity, so the existence of additional

policies for contribution is not relevant to this lawsuit. The motion is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 20, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02395-WQH-CAB Document 47 Filed 09/20/07 Page 2 of 2