Homesite Insurance Company of the Midwest v. Howell
2:21-cv-01389
W.D. Wash.Dec 2, 2022Background
- Homesite (plaintiff) sued for a declaratory judgment that it has no duty to defend Robert Howell Jr. in a Sierra Pacific quiet-title lawsuit; Homesite is defending under a reservation of rights and the Howells filed counterclaims.
- Howell Jr. served discovery on Homesite on Jan. 24, 2022; parties had a Rule 26(f) conference on Feb. 3, 2022. Homesite agreed responses were due 30 days after the conference (March 7, 2022).
- Homesite requested an extension on March 1 and served objections, answers, and document responses on March 8, 2022 (less than one day late).
- Howell Jr. moved to strike Homesite’s objections as untimely, to strike Homesite’s boilerplate “General Objections,” and to compel further responses to several interrogatories and requests for production.
- The court denied striking objections as untimely (excusing one-day delay for good cause), granted striking general objections as boilerplate, granted a compelled, more specific response to Request for Production No. 1 (documents referencing “Robert Howell Sr.”), and denied the remainder of the motion to compel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver/timeliness of objections | Homesite: one-day late filing was excused; no prejudice; good-faith extension request | Howell Jr.: any untimely objection is waived and should be struck | Court: denied motion to strike; applied Rule 33 waiver principle to Rule 34 but excused one-day delay for good cause (no bad faith or prejudice) |
| Boilerplate "General Objections" | Homesite: included broad prefatory objections and used "subject to" language in responses | Howell Jr.: boilerplate objections are insufficient and must be struck | Court: granted motion to strike general objections; required specific objections and privilege log for any asserted privilege (per Burlington) |
| Specificity for RFP No. 1 (documents referring to "Robert Howell Sr.") | Homesite: produced claim and underwriting files and said defendant can search them | Howell Jr.: production is evasive; Homesite must identify responsive items or state none exist | Court: granted motion to compel more specific response to RFP No. 1; Homesite must provide a more complete response within 10 days |
| Sufficiency of responses to Interrogatories 8, 9, 11, 18, 20 and RFPs 4,5,7,8 | Homesite: provided factual descriptions and referred to claim/underwriting files; reserved right to supplement; asserted some privileges but did not log privileged documents | Howell Jr.: responses vague, rely on inferences, or merely refer to files without identifying supporting documents or intent evidence | Court: overruled objections to Interrogatory 8 and RFP 4 but found Homesite's response adequate (denying compel); denied compel for Interrogatory 9, 11, 18 and 20 and RFPs 5,7,8 (responses were adequate or issues were improper/confusing) |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court, 408 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005) (boilerplate objections insufficient; privilege claims must be expressly asserted and described in a privilege log)
- Cargill, Inc. v. Ron Burge Trucking, Inc., 284 F.R.D. 421 (D. Minn. 2012) (waiver provision in Rule 33(b)(4) applies to Rule 34 document requests)