Opinion
No. C10-02528 JW (HRL).
January 11, 2011
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND DISCOVERY [Re: Docket No. 19]
This action arises from the burglary of plaintiff Clarence Chan's home. His claim for insurance benefits was denied. Chan, who is proceeding pro se, sues for alleged bad faith breach of his insurance policy. Defendants contend that plaintiff's claim properly was denied because Chan refused repeated requests for information about his claimed losses.
Before this court is defendants' motion for an order (a) compelling plaintiff to provide his Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 initial disclosures; (b) compelling plaintiff to respond, without objection, to their interrogatories and document requests; and (c) deeming admitted matters in defendants' requests for admission. The docket indicates that defendants' motion was duly served on plaintiff at his address of record. Plaintiff failed to file any opposition to the motion, as required by Civil Local Rule 7-3. He did appear for the January 11, 2011 motion hearing, at which time defense counsel advised that several weeks ago, Chan produced a box of documents. Included in the box was a document that apparently contain his responses to defendant's requests for production, interrogatories and requests for admission (albeit, the responses themselves are titled "Declaration of Defendant Clarence Chan in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment" and the document erroneously is captioned for the Santa Clara County Superior Court).
As a threshold matter, Chan is advised that the fact that he is proceeding pro se does not excuse him from complying with rules that all litigants are obliged to follow. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (finding that pro per litigants must follow the same procedural rules as represented parties). And, there is a limit to the number of procedural missteps that this court fairly can countenance. Chan is well-advised to obtain a copy of the court's Handbook for Litigants Without a Lawyer (available at the Clerk's Office and on the court's website at www.cand.uscourts.gov). He may also wish to avail himself of services available at the Federal Legal Assistance Self-Help Center at the San Jose Courthouse.
With respect to defendants' motion to compel Chan's initial disclosures, Rule 26(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that, except as otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a party must — without waiting for a discovery request — provide certain information about witnesses, documents, damage computations, and liability insurance. The exceptions to the mandatory initial disclosure requirement do not apply here. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a)(1)(B). Defendants say that they conferred with plaintiff about his requisite disclosures in August 2010. And, the record presented indicates that plaintiff's initial disclosures are months overdue. Chan stated to this court that he will serve his disclosures on defendants this week. Accordingly, defendants' motion to compel Chan's initial disclosures is granted. Chan shall serve his Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 initial disclosures on defendant no later than January 14, 2011.
As for defendants' motion to compel Chan's responses to their requests for production and interrogatories, this court will, in its discretion, deem the motion moot in view of Chan's responses served in December 2010. For future reference, however, Chan is advised that the failure to timely respond to a discovery request constitutes a waiver of all objections. See Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992). Although courts have broad discretion to grant relief from any waiver, see Blumenthal v. Drudge, 186 F.R.D. 236, 240 (D. D.C. 1999), Chan must offer more than his pro se status to establish good cause for such relief. And, it is expected that Chan will apprise himself of applicable deadlines on any future discovery requests defendants may serve.
As for defendants' requests for admission (RFAs), there is no dispute that Chan's responses were well overdue. When a party fails to timely respond to RFAs, the matters requested are automatically deemed admitted. See FED. R. CIV. P. 36(a)(3) ("A matter is admitted unless, within 30 days after being served, the party to whom the request is directed serves on the requesting party a written answer or objection addressed to the matter and signed by the party or its attorney."). As discussed at the motion hearing, this court will, in its discretion, relieve Chan from the automatic admission of those matters in this particular instance. On any future requests, however, Chan is well advised to serve his responses within the time set out in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Finally, at oral argument, defendants stated that they believe Chan's discovery responses are deficient. As defendants acknowledged, however, the sufficiency (or not) of Chan's responses are not before this court on the instant motion. The parties are directed to meet-and-confer in person, and in good faith, in an effort to resolve any disputes about Chan's responses before seeking judicial intervention. CIV. L.R. 37-1. If they cannot agree on a suitable meeting place, the in-person meet-and-confer negotiations shall take place at a location half-way between defense counsel's and plaintiff's respective locations.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 11, 2011