WELCH VS FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE GROUP
Plaintiff’s motion to compel and request for monetary sanctions are?denied.??Defendant?s request for monetary sanctions in the amount of $3,150 against Plaintiff is?granted.
Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Special Interrogatories No. 1, 5 and 6.? As explained by Plaintiff, the interrogatories were designed to obtain information sufficient to allow Plaintiff to serve Defendant Fidelity National Title Group as it allegedly does not have an agent for service of process.? Interrogatory No. 1 asks Defendant to identify the officers of Fidelity National Title Group.?? Interrogatory No. 5 asks Defendant to identify ?any of Fidelity?s entities that provide escrow Services.?? Defendant objected to these interrogatories on various grounds, including relevance and burden.? According to the responses, Fidelity National Title Group has hundreds of officers and ?potentially? operates in ?every metropolitan area in the United States.?
It appears that there is some confusion as to the status of Defendant Fidelity National Title Group.? According to the caption on the answer, Defendants are ?Fidelity National Title Insurance Company and Fidelity National Title Company (erroneously sued herein as Fidelity National Title Group, dba Fidelity National Title Company, dba Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, also dba Fidelity Escrow Services.?? (Emphasis added.)? The caption suggests that there is no Fidelity National Title Group.? However, Defendant?s response to interrogatory no. 5 states: ?Fidelity National Title Group (?FNTG?) has hundreds of officers.?? That response suggests that Fidelity National Title Group does exist.? If Fidelity National Title Group exists as an entity, Plaintiff has named it as a defendant and should be able to obtain information sufficient to serve it.
However, Interrogatories No. 1 and 5 do not seek information which would allow Plaintiff to serve Fidelity National Title Group.? Plaintiff does not need the names and contact information of ?hundreds of officers? or the name and location of every Fidelity entity providing escrow services in order to serve Fidelity National Title Group.? The interrogatories are overbroad and unduly burdensome for the purpose of service and do not seek information which is relevant to any other aspect of the case.? Accordingly, Plaintiff?s motion to compel further responses is denied as to Interrogatories No. 1 and 5.
As for Interrogatory No. 6, Defendant?s response states that it did not rely on any documents in responding to the interrogatories, so there is nothing further to compel and Plaintiff?s motion is denied as to Interrogatory No. 6.
Pursuant to CCP ? 2030.290, the Court ?shall?impose a monetary sanction . . . against any party, person, or attorney who unsuccessfully makes . . . a motion to compel a response to interrogatories, unless it finds that the one subject to the sanction acted with substantial justification or that other circumstances makes the imposition of the sanction unjust.?? The Court finds that Plaintiff did not act with substantial justification with regard to the motion to compel and awards Defendant monetary sanctions of $3,150 against Plaintiff.
Defendant to give notice.