Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01418/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01418-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Christine Cerda
Plaintiff
Thomas Cerda
Plaintiff
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
Defendant

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS CERDA, et al., )

)

)

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE )

COMPANY, et al., )

)

)

)

)

Defendants. )

 )

1:05cv1418 AWI DLB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

RESPONSES AND REQUEST FOR

SANCTIONS

(Document 11)

Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (“Defendant”) filed the instant motion to

compel discovery responses and for sanctions on September 25, 2006. Pursuant to Local Rule

78-230(h), the Court deemed the motion proper for determination without oral argument.

BACKGROUND

This action, filed by Plaintiffs Thomas and Christine Cerda (“Plaintiffs”), was removed

from the Fresno County Superior Court on November 10, 2005. The action involves an

insurance dispute between Plaintiffs and Defendant in which Plaintiffs contend that (1)

Defendant owes them certain sums under the homeowners policy after a rental property was

destroyed by fire and subsequently demolished by Plaintiffs; and (2) they have been damaged by

Defendant’s refusal to pay the full policy limits until the home is rebuilt. 

Case 1:05-cv-01418-AWI-DLB Document 37 Filed 10/20/06 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

Defendant filed this motion to compel responses to its First Set of Special Interrogatories

and First Set of Request for Production of Documents on September 25, 2006. Defendant also

requests sanctions. Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion or otherwise contacted the Court. 

DISCUSSION

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides that a party “may obtain discovery

regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party,

including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books,

documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of

any discoverable matter.” 

On May 8, 2006, Defendant served Plaintiff Thomas Cerda with its First Set of Special

Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Both contained nine

requests relating to Plaintiffs’ claims. On June 6, 2006, Plaintiffs’ counsel, Edward Chatoian,

requested an extension of time in which Plaintiff could respond. Defendant granted an extension

to June 14, 2006. Plaintiff did not provide responses by that date.

On July 17, 2006, and again on August 2, 2006, Defendant attempted to contact Mr.

Chatoian by both letter and telephone. To date, Defendant has not received a response from Mr.

Chatoian or Ms. Halpin, his paralegal. 

Defendant’s motion is therefore GRANTED. By failing to timely respond, Plaintiff has 

waived any objections he may have had to the discovery. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 33(b)(4). Plaintiff

shall file his responses within twenty (20) days of the date of service of this order.

Pursuant to Rule 37(a)(4)(A), the Court GRANTS Defendant’s request for sanctions in

the amount of $630.00. This amount is payable by Plaintiff and his attorney of record within

twenty (20) days of the date of service of this order.

Failure to comply with this order may result in additional sanctions, including dismissal. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 20, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01418-AWI-DLB Document 37 Filed 10/20/06 Page 2 of 2