Cargill, Inc. v. Ron Burge Trucking, Inc., 284 F.R.D. 421

Cargill, Inc. moves to compel discovery from National Interstate Insurance Corp. in a dispute over insurance coverage and bad-faith claims related to a contaminated salt shipment.
National Interstate insured Burge Trucking and hired a firm to represent both Burge and Cargill, creating a claimed conflict of interest.
Cargill settled Leprino Foods' claim for $1.6 million and asserts it brings this action as subrogee and on its own behalf for bad-faith denial of insurance benefits.
Cargill served interrogatories and document requests on National Interstate on January 13, 2012; National Interstate did not respond, prompting Cargill to move on May 9, 2012 for relief.
The magistrate judge grants the motion to compel, finds waiver of National Interstate’s objections, and sets deadlines for revised responses and for fee submissions.
Document Request No. 8 (claims files for other denied claims) is deemed irrelevant and not required to be answered.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether National Interstate waived objections to discovery	Cargill contends waiver under Rule 33/34 applies due to untimely responses.	National Interstate argues its delay is justified or moot because it later served some responses.	Objections waived; responses must be revised removing objections.
Whether the waiver should be excused for good cause	Cargill contends no good cause supports waiver.	National Interstate claims some good cause due to related proceedings.	Good cause not shown; waiver excused.
Whether National Interstate must respond to all discovery or only some	Cargill seeks full, non-objection responses; sanctions if noncompliant.	Some objections may remain or be justified for specific requests.	Objections stricken; revised complete responses required; certain requests limited (No. 8) as overbroad.
Rule 37 sanctions for discovery failure	Award reasonable fees and expenses incurred in bringing the motion.	No opposition to the amount argued yet; need to verify reasonableness.	National Interstate must pay reasonable fees and costs; amount to be determined via affidavit and possible briefing.
Whether National Interstate must answer document Request No. 8	Requests show insurer’s pattern/practice of denying claims above limits relevant to bad-faith claim.	Request is irrelevant and overbroad; not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.	Request No. 8 need not be answered.

Ramirez v. County of Los Angeles, 231 F.R.D. 407 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (untimely objections generally waived)
Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 238 F.R.D. 536 (D. Conn. 2006) (implied waiver of Rule 34 accommodations)
Deal v. Lutheran Hosp. & Homes, 127 F.R.D. 166 (D. Alaska 1989) (similar procedures for waivers across discovery rules)
Bohlin v. Brass Rail, Inc., 20 F.R.D. 224 (S.D.N.Y. 1957) (considering whether failure to object constitutes waiver)
Cardox Corp. v. Olin Mathieson Chem. Corp., 23 F.R.D. 27 (S.D. Ill. 1958) (response/objection timeliness and waiver)
Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants, 959 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1992) (waiver for failure to object within time)
Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154 (9th Cir. 1981) (untimely responses waive objections)
Pham v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 193 F.R.D. 659 (D. Colo. 2000) (privilege waived when no timely privilege log)
Ayers v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 240 F.R.D. 216 (N.D. W. Va. 2007) (multifactor test for waiving privilege)
Starlight Int’l, Inc. v. Herlihy, 181 F.R.D. 494 (D. Kan. 1998) (factors for excusing waiver in discovery disputes)
McKissick v. Three Deer Ass’n Ltd. P’ship, 265 F.R.D. 55 (D. Conn. 2010) (diligence and timing in waivers analysis)
Boerger v. American General Insurance Co., 257 Minn. 72, 100 N.W.2d 133 (1959) (considerations for discovery in state context)