Opinion
2:23-cv-0649 TLN DB
05-02-2024
RLC INDUSTRIES CO. and ROSEBURG FOREST PRODCUTS CO., Plaintiffs, v. LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Defendant.
ORDER
DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
As explained by the parties, this “insurance case concerns whether fees incurred by [plaintiff] in defending against” lawsuits related to the Mill Fire were reasonable and necessary. (JS (ECF No. 46-1) at 2.) On April 22, 2024, plaintiff filed a motion to compel supplemental responses along with the parties' Joint Statement. (ECF No. 46.) The motion is noticed for hearing before the undersigned on May 8, 2024, pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(1). (ECF No. 52.) Review of the Joint Statement finds that at issue are defendant's responses to two interrogatories: Interrogatory No. 6 and Interrogatory No. 10. With respect to Interrogatory No. 10, defendant asserts that plaintiff's arguments found in the Joint Statement “were not . . . the subject of . . . telephonic meet and confer conferences.” (JS (ECF No. 46-1) at 17.)
“Meeting and conferring saves time and money for all involved-if done correctly.” Mollica v. Cnty. of Sacramento, No. 2:19-cv-2017 KJM DB, 2022 WL 15053335, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 26, 2022). In order to give the parties an opportunity to fully exhaust their meet and confer efforts the May 8, 2024 hearing will be continued. To further aid the parties' meeting and conferring, the undersigned offers some preliminary thoughts after reviewing the Joint Statement. These thoughts are by no means conclusive, nor do they reflect the merits of the motion to compel.
With respect to Interrogatory No 6., plaintiff seeks “all facts” that support defendant's contention that plaintiff failed to mitigate damages. (JS (ECF No. 46-1) at 9.) Plaintiff takes issue with defendant's response, in part, relying on “[f]or example” as opposed to stating all facts known to defendant. (Id. at 10.) This argument seems to ring true. See generally Stillwagon v. City of Delaware, Case No. 2:14-cv-807, 2:14-cv-1606, 2016 WL 6248956, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 26, 2016) (“Courts have frequently ordered a party to provide a more complete answer to interrogatories when the initial answer does not respond fully to the question being asked.”); Hansel v. Shell Oil Corp., 169 F.R.D. 303, 305 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (“Parties must provide true, explicit, responsive, complete, and candid answers to interrogatories.”).
Interrogatory No. 10 asks defendant to identify law firms retained by defendant to defend actions similar to actions like the Mill Fire. (JS (ECF No. 46-1) at 14.) Defendant argues responding to this interrogatory would result in an “extreme burden.” (Id. at 18.) In opposing discovery on the grounds of burdensomeness, “a party has the burden to show facts justifying their objection by demonstrating that the time or expense involved in responding to requested discovery is unduly burdensome. This imposes an obligation to provide sufficient detail in terms of time, money and procedure required to produce the requested documents.” Cory v. Aztec Steel Bldg., Inc., 225 F.R.D. 667, 672 (D. Kan. 2005) (quotation omitted). Although defendant has provided a declaration in support, that declaration does not appear to demonstrate the time, money and procedure required to respond to the interrogatory.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The May 8, 2024 hearing of plaintiff's motion to compel (ECF No. 46) is continued to June 13, 2024, at 10:00 am via Zoom;.
2. On or before May 23, 2024, the parties shall meet and confer, in person or via telephone or video conferencing, with respect to plaintiff's motion to compel; and
3. On or before May 30, 2024, the parties shall file a Joint Statement or a notice of withdrawal of the motion.