Summary
denying request for sanctions brought in connection with motion to compel because sanctions request was not separately filed
Summary of this case from Subramani v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.Opinion
NO. C 05-03097 (RS).
November 30, 2006
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO COMPEL
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is the motion of defendant Academy Collection Service, Inc. to compel further discovery responses and its request for sanctions. Pursuant to Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds this motion suitable for disposition without oral argument. For reasons explained below, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
DISCUSSION
The factual background of this action has been discussed in prior orders and will not be repeated here.
Plaintiffs argue that this motion was untimely filed because the "case management order does not specify the deadline for motions to compel but it would be reasonable to make it the same as the discovery cut off." Academy responds that since "there is no set time limit either in the Code [sic] or in the Court's Case Management Order," it should be deemed to have acted with reasonable diligence by filing this motion a little more than a month after receiving the discovery responses in dispute.
Local Civil Rule 26-2 is entitled, in relevant part, "Deadline to File Motions to Compel" and it expressly provides that motions to compel may be filed up to seven court days after the discovery cut-off. Here, the discovery cut-off was October 16, 2006. This motion was filed on the fifth court day thereafter, October 23, 2006. The motion is timely.
B. Interrogatory Responses
Academy propounded one set of 25 numbered interrogatories on each plaintiff. Although plaintiffs asserted various objections to each interrogatory, the sole objection on which it relies in opposing this motion is its contention that the 25th interrogatory in each set created a violation of the numerical limit on interrogatories. That interrogatory asked plaintiffs to state the factual basis for any response to a request for admissions that was not an unqualified admission. Plaintiffs are correct that such an interrogatory "counts" separately for each applicable request for admission. See Local Civil Rule 33-2; Safeco of America v. Rawston, 181 F.R.D. 441, 445-446 (C.D. Cal. 1998). Accordingly, plaintiffs could properly object to responding further to the 25th interrogatory after answering it with respect to one request for admission.
Plaintiffs cannot, however, evade providing any substantive responses to the first 24 interrogatories (or a response to the 25th interrogatory with respect to one request for admission), simply because the remainder of the 25th interrogatory is objectionable. Accordingly, the motion is granted as to Interrogatories Nos. 1-24 in each set, and as to Interrogatory No. 25 in each set, limited to a single request for admission.
C. Document Requests
On reply, Academy acknowledges receipt of the documents it was seeking.
D. Sanctions
The request for sanctions is denied. Local Civil Rule 7-8 requires all motions for sanctions to be separately noticed.
CONCLUSION
The motion to compel and request for sanctions is granted to the extent set forth above and is otherwise denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.