Pruco Life Insurance Company v. California Energy Development, Inc.

District Court, S.D. California·Decided July 13, 2021·No. 3:18-cv-02280·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE Case No.: 3:18-cv-02280-DMS-AHG COMPANY, 12 ORDER SETTING DEADLINE FOR Plaintiff, ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION OF 13 OUTSTANDING DISCOVERY v. 14 CALIFORNIA ENERGY 15 DEVELOPMENT INC., et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On June 24, 2021, the Court issued an Order (1) Setting Deadlines Regarding 20 Outstanding Discovery; and (2) Setting Additional Case Management Conference. ECF 21 No. 265. In pertinent part, the Court’s Order set a deadline of July 1, 2021 for (1) Mickey 22 Nicholson and Jason Voelker to respond to Life Advance, LLC’s (“Life Advance”) 23 outstanding Special Interrogatories; (2) Mickey Nicholson to respond to Life Advance’s 24 Request for Production of Documents (Set Two) and produce responsive documents; and 25 (3) Mickey Nicholson to respond to Life Advance’s Request for Production of Documents 26 accompanying its deposition notice and produce responsive documents. Id. at 2. Life 27 Advance was required to notify the Court of any issues regarding the production by 28 July 8, 2021. Id. 1 Life Advance has brought the following issues to the Court’s attention: 2 (1) The Special Interrogatory responses served by Mr. Voelker and Mr. Nicholson 3 on July 1, 2021 were each designated as “Second Response,” but to date, Life 4 Advance has never received the written responses to its Special Interrogatories 5 that Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Voelker claimed were previously sent by mail on 6 January 13, 2021. 7 (2) Mr. Voelker did not date the verification of his responses to Life Advance’s 8 Special Interrogatories. 9 (3) Mr. Nicholson did not sign or date the verification of his responses to Life 10 Advance’s Special Interrogatories, and the unsigned verification references Jason 11 Voelker’s responses rather than his own. 12 (4) The third page of Mr. Voelker’s response to Life Advance’s Special 13 Interrogatories was poorly scanned and is illegible. 14 (5) Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Voelker did not attach proofs of service to their written 15 responses. 16 (6) Mr. Nicholson did not respond to Life Advance’s Request for Production of 17 Documents (Set Two) or produce responsive documents. 18 (7) Mr. Nicholson did not respond to Life Advance’s Request for Production of 19 Documents accompanying its deposition notice or produce responsive 20 documents.1 21 Life Advance requests that the Court enter an order requiring Mr. Nicholson and Mr. 22 Voelker to produce the written responses they claimed were sent by standard mail, with 23 proofs of service. Life Advance further requests that it be awarded sanctions or leave to 24 25 26 1 Counsel for Life Advance noted that Mr. Voelker sent him an email on July 1, 2021, 27 purportedly on behalf of Mr. Nicholson, asking for an extension until July 5, 2021. However, as of July 8, 2021, Life Advance had still received no responses from Mr. 28 1 file a motion for sanctions. 2 The Court agrees that Mr. Nicholson and Mr. Voelker’s discovery conduct is 3 unacceptable. Both parties have defied the Court’s June 24 Order. The Court notes that 4 willful disobedience of a court order is grounds for the Court to impose sanctions, including 5 fee-shifting sanctions, pursuant to its inherent authority and even without a motion by Life 6 Advance. Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Roadway Express, 7 Inc. v. Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 776 (1980)). See also Primus Auto. Fin. Servs. v. Batarse, 115 8 F.3d 644, 648 (9th Cir. 1997) (noting that a “court’s inherent power to impose attorney’s 9 fees as a sanction [is limited] to cases in which a litigant has engaged in bad-faith conduct 10 or willful disobedience of a court’s orders.”). Bad faith can be established “by ‘delaying or 11 disrupting the litigation or hampering enforcement of a court order.’” Id. (quoting Hutto v. 12 Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 689 n.14 (1978)); CivLR 83.1(a) (“Failure of counsel or of any party 13 to comply with . . . any order of the court may be grounds for imposition by the court of 14 any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or within the inherent power of the court, 15 including, without limitation, dismissal of any actions, entry of default, finding of 16 contempt, imposition of monetary sanctions or attorneys’ fees and costs, and other lesser 17 sanctions”). 18 The Case Management Conference (“CMC”) is set for July 16, 2021 at 11:00 a.m. 19 The Court ORDERS the following to take place before the CMC:2 20 (1) Mickey Nicholson is ORDERED to respond to Life Advance’s Request for 21 Production of Documents (Set Two) and to produce all responsive documents. 22 (2) Mickey Nicholson is ORDERED to respond to Life Advance’s Request for 23 Production of Documents accompanying its deposition notice and to produce all responsive 24 documents. 25 (3) Jason Voelker and Mickey Nicholson are ORDERED to provide signed 26 27 2 Because this Order sets a short deadline, the Court will provide a courtesy copy of the 28 | ||declarations to counsel for Life Advance stating whether they ever sent any earlier 2 ||responses to Life Advance’s Special Interrogatories, prior to providing the responses 3 || designated as “Second Response” on July 1, 2021. If such “First Responses” do indeed 4 |/exist, Mr. Voelker and Mr. Nicholson are ORDERED to produce them to Life Advance 5 ||before the CMC, along with proofs of service showing when they were previously 6 || provided. If they do not exist, Mr. Voelker and Mr. Nicholson are ORDERED to state that 7 || fact in signed declarations. 8 (4) Jason Voelker and Mickey Nicholson are ORDERED to provide proofs of 9 service for the written responses they served on Life Advance on July 1, 2021, and they 10 also attach proofs of service to all additional responses and responsive documents 11 served on Life Advance pursuant to this Order. 12 (5) Jason Voelker and Mickey Nicholson are ORDERED to amend their existing 13 ||responses served on Life Advance on July 1, 2021 to address the problems identified 14 || herein— .e., illegible pages, unsigned/undated verifications, and the reference to the wrong 15 ||set of responses on Mr. Nicholson’s verification—and to serve complete and verified 16 |/responses on Life Advance. 17 Failure to comply with this Order will result in an Order to Show Cause why the 18 |/non-compliant party should not face sanctions, including but not limited to fee-shifting 19 || sanctions. 21 22 || Dated: July 13, 2021 23 _Abiomt. Xl Honorable Allison H. Goddard 24 United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pruco Life Insurance Company v. California Energy Development, Inc., (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Pruco Life Insurance Company v. California Energy Development, Inc. (Pruco Life Insurance Company v. California Energy Development, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hutto v. Finney
437 U.S. 678 (Supreme Court, 1979)
Roadway Express, Inc. v. Piper
447 U.S. 752 (Supreme Court, 1980)
Kinion v. United States
8 F.3d 639 (Eighth Circuit, 1993)