Bica v. Genworth Life Insurance Company

1
3:24-cv-01123-L-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
BEVERLY BICA,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,
v.
GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant/Counter-Claimant.
Case No.: 3:24-cv-01123-L-AHG
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
[ECF No. 56]
Before the Court is Defendant/Counter-Claimant Genworth Life Insurance
Company’s (“Defendant”) Motion to Compel.1 ECF No. 56. Defendant seeks to compel
discovery responses from Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Beverly Bica (“Plaintiff” or
“Ms. Bica”), which Plaintiff does not oppose. ECF No. 61. The Court finds the matter
suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). ECF
No. 58 at 2.
1 Though the Court generally requires joint motions, (see Chmb.R. at 2), the Court excused
the parties from this requirement regarding the instant dispute. See ECF No. 54.
Case 3:24-cv-01123-JES-AHG Document 71 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 6

2
3:24-cv-01123-L-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. BACKGROUND
On August 27, 2025, the parties jointly notified the Court that they were in the midst
of meeting and conferring, in an effort to resolve discovery disputes regarding Plaintiff’s
responses to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of
Documents. ECF No. 36 at 2–3. The Court, pursuant to the parties’ request, extended the
deadline for the parties to bring their discovery disputes to the Court’s attention to
September 24, 2025. ECF No. 37. On September 11, 2025, Defendant notified the Court
via email that the parties were working to resolve disputes regarding a protocol for
collection of Electronically Stored Information (“ESI”) by a neutral vendor, since
Plaintiff’s counsel was not able to contact their client and “Ms. Bica ha[d] not collected
responsive emails and messages or executed consents for productions by third parties such
as her email account providers.” Email to Chambers (Sept. 11, 2025, at 3:27 PM). The
Court deferred ruling on the matter due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s anticipated motion to
withdraw. Email from Chambers (Sept. 11, 2025, at 3:58 PM); see ECF No. 40. On
September 24, 2025, Defendant notified the Court via email that the disputes regarding
Plaintiff’s interrogatory responses, request for production responses, ESI Protocol,
independent medical examination scheduling, as well as others, remained unresolved.
Email to Chambers (Sept. 24, 2025, at 10:13 AM). In response, the Court issued an order
extending the deadline for the parties to bring any discovery disputes to the Court’s
attention. ECF No. 42 at 2 (extending deadline to “within seven [] days of the ruling on
Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to withdraw”).
On November 24, 2025, after the motion to withdraw was denied, Defendant notified
the Court that discovery disputes remained as to: (1) “Ms. Bica refusing to appear for a
Rule 35 Independent Physical and Mental Examination;” (2) “Ms. Bica’s counsel not
confirming the ESI collection protocol to be performed by a neutral vendor;” (3) “Ms. Bica
failing to appear for her noticed deposition;” and (4) “Ms. Bica not providing various
supplemental discovery responses and verifications as agreed by her counsel during meet
and confers.” Email to Chambers (Nov. 24, 2025, at 5:00 PM). Pursuant to the Court’s
Case 3:24-cv-01123-JES-AHG Document 71 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 6

3
3:24-cv-01123-L-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
direction and in compliance with the Court’s Chambers Rules, (see Chmb.R. at 2), the
parties resubmitted a joint email on December 2, 2026, providing each side’s positions
regarding the four categories of disputes previously submitted. Email to Chambers
(Dec. 2, 2025, at 8:54 AM). The Court held a discovery conference in the matter on
December 3, 2025. ECF No. 54. The Court found it appropriate for the disputes to be
briefed, and permitted Defendant to file a motion to compel. Id.
Defendant filed the instant motion to compel on December 10, 2025. ECF No. 56.
Defendant seeks an order from the Court requiring Plaintiff to (1) serve supplemental
responses and make additional production in response to Defendant’s First Set of
Interrogatories Nos. 1, 4–6, 8–9, and 11–13, and Requests for Production Nos. 7–18, 20–
21, 24–29, 32, 36–37, and 44–55, consistent with the parties’ meet-and-confer agreements
to supplement; (2) verify her responses to Defendant’s Second Set of Interrogatories; (3)
serve responses to Defendant’s Third Set of Requests for Production, having waived any
objections thereto; and (4) comply with the accompanying ESI Collection Protocol, all
within 14 days of that order. ECF No. 56 at 2; ECF No. 57 at 2 (correcting RFP numbers).
Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition to the instant motion on December 22, 2025. ECF
No. 61. This order follows.
II. DISCUSSION
Here, Plaintiff confirmed that she “does not oppose Defendant[’s] [] Motion to
Compel[.]” ECF No. 61. On this ground alone, the Court may grant the motion. See Moreno
v. Unique Plumbing LLC, No. 24-cv-916-DBP, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221943, at *1 (D.
Utah Nov. 10, 2025) (summarily granting defendant’s motion to compel compliance with
subpoena when plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition); Hendrickson v. USAA Savings
Bank, No. 19-cv-2140-GMN-NJK, 2020 WL 1815826, at *2 (D. Nev. Apr. 8, 2020)
(summarily granting defendant’s motion to compel arbitration when plaintiff filed a notice
of non-opposition); see cf. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 54 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming
dismissal for failing to oppose a motion to dismiss, based on a local rule providing that
Case 3:24-cv-01123-JES-AHG Document 71 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 6

4
3:24-cv-01123-L-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“[t]he failure of the opposing party to file a memorandum of points and authorities in
opposition to any motion shall constitute consent to the granting of the motion”).
For completeness, however, the Court will briefly address each of Defendant’s
requests.
A. Request for Supplemental Responses and Additional Production to
First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production
Parties have a duty to supplement their discovery responses in a timely manner when
the response is incomplete or incorrect, or if additional information subsequently comes to
light. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(e)(1)(A). The Court has reviewed the discovery requests at issue
and finds that all such requests seek relevant information. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1); see ECF
No. 56-1 at 5–30. The Court has also reviewed Defendant’s declaration and the parties’
meet and confer agreement, and finds there to be evidence of a promise to supplement by
Plaintiff. ECF No. 56-1 at 2–4, 112–13. As such, Plaintiff must provide supplemental
responses.
B. Request for Verified Responses to Second Set of Interrogatories
Here, Plaintiff’s responses are signed by counsel with a note of “verification to
follow.” ECF No. 56-1 at 143–44 (emphasis omitted). “Each interrogatory must, to the
extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” FED.
R. CIV. P. 33(b)(3). As such, the person who answers interrogatories must verify the
responses by signing them. FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(5). Thus, Plaintiff must verify her
interrogatory responses.
C. Request for Responses to Third Set of Requests for Production
Courts have broad discretion to determine relevance for discovery purposes. Doherty
v. Comenity Capital Bank, No. 16-cv-1321-H-BGS, 2017 WL 1885677, at *2 (S.D. Cal.
May 9, 2017) (citing Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002)). The Court has
reviewed the discovery requests at issue and finds that all such requests seek relevant
information. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1); see ECF No. 56-1 at 146–52. Thus, these requests
Case 3:24-cv-01123-JES-AHG Document 71 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 6

5
3:24-cv-01123-L-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
are within the scope of discovery authorized by Rule 26(b), and Plaintiff must respond to
them.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33, any ground to object to an
interrogatory that is not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the Court excuses the
failure. FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(4). Although Rule 34 does not include the same language
regarding waiver of objections as to responses to Requests for Production, courts have
treated waiver under Rule 34 the same as waiver under Rule 33. Greenmount LLC v.
Cleanline Mgmt. LLC, No. 23-cv-10376-MRA-RAOx, 2025 WL 1012298, at *2 n.2 (C.D.
Cal. Mar. 27, 2025); Barlow v. Herman, No. 2:13-cv-33-JAD, 2014 WL 60213, at *3 (D.
Nev. Jan. 6, 2014) (collecting cases); see Richmark Corp. v. Timber Falling Consultants,
959 F.2d 1468, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (“It is well established that a failure to object to
discovery requests within the time required constitutes a waiver of any objection”).
Plaintiff’s responses were due on October 13, 2025. ECF No. 56-1 at 4. Having received
no responses or objections to date, the Court deems any objections to Defendant’s Third
Set of Requests for Production to be waived.
D. Request for Compliance with ESI Collection Protocol
The Court has also reviewed Defendant’s declaration and the parties’ joint email
submission regarding the ESI collection protocol. Although Plaintiff’s counsel agreed “in
principle that Plaintiff’s ESI is relevant and discoverable,” they also explained that
“[w]ithout Plaintiff’s cooperation, counsel cannot move forward with any protocol.” Email
to Chambers (Dec. 2, 2025, at 10:16 AM). The proposed protocol would allow a neutral
vendor to perform a search and collection of Plaintiff’s electronic devices and accounts,
which could be a considerable invasion of Plaintiff’s privacy. The Court finds that there is
no need to bind Plaintiff to this specific protocol in light of this order, which requires
Plaintiff to produce all responsive information to Defendant’s discovery requests within
two weeks. How Plaintiff accomplishes that production is within her purview. See The
Sedona Principles, Third Edition, 19 SEDONA CONF. J. 1, Principle 6, 118 (2018)
(“Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and
Case 3:24-cv-01123-JES-AHG Document 71 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 6

6
3:24-cv-01123-L-AHG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored
information.”).
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN
PART Defendant’s Motion to Compel (ECF No. 56) and ORDERS as follows:
1. No later than March 13, 2026, Plaintiff must serve complete, verified
supplemental responses and make a further production in response to
Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1, 4–6, 8–9, and 11–13) and
Requests for Production (Nos. 7–18, 20–21, 24–29, 32, 36–37, and 45–55),
consistent with Plaintiff’s counsel’s agreement during the parties’ meet and
confer efforts.
2. No later than March 13, 2026, Plaintiff must verify her responses to
Defendant’s Second Set of Interrogatories.
3. No later than March 13, 2026, Plaintiff must serve complete responses and
make a full production in response to Defendant’s Third Set of Requests for
Production, to which any objections are deemed waived.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 27, 2026
Case 3:24-cv-01123-JES-AHG Document 71 Filed 02/27/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 6