Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00903/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00903-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

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

06cv0903

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

J&M ASSOCIATES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE

COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA, et

al.,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-CV-0903-W (JMA)

ORDER: 

(1) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

RESPONSES [Doc. 76] AND 

(2) REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO

PROVIDE AMENDED DISCOVERY

RESPONSES AND REQUIRING

PARTIES TO MEET AND CONFER

REGARDING DISCOVERY ADDRESSED

IN PLAINTIFF’S “SUR-REPLY”

[Doc. 85]

Plaintiff J&M Associates, Inc. (“J&M”) has filed a motion

for an order compelling Defendant National Union Fire Insurance

Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“National Union”) to respond to

various written discovery requests. National Union opposes. For

the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES

IN PART J&M’s motion. 

With respect to the discovery requests addressed in J&M’s

“Sur-Reply” and National Union’s Response thereto, the Court

ORDERS that National Union provide amended responses as set forth

Case 3:06-cv-00903-W-JMA Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 1 of 17
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

2 06cv0903

below and that counsel meet and confer concerning any remaining

disputed issues.

I. BACKGROUND

The factual background of this case has previously been set

forth in two comprehensive orders issued by District Judge Whelan

(see Docs. 44 & 64) and need not be repeated here.

With respect to the instant dispute, in January 2007, J&M

propounded requests for production of documents and special

interrogatories upon National Union. National Union’s responses

to this discovery were postponed pending the outcome of the

summary judgment motions filed before Judge Whelan. Following

the denial of the summary judgment motions (Docs. 44 & 64), this

Court convened a Case Management Conference and ordered that

National Union’s responses to the outstanding written discovery

be provided by no later than November 30, 2007. Doc. 67. 

National Union served its discovery responses and objections on

that date, and the parties were unable to resolve their disputes

in subsequent meet and confer sessions. J&M now moves to compel

responses to the following discovery requests: Requests for

Production Nos. 3, 6, 11-13 and 21-24, and Special Interrogatory

Nos. 5-11. 

Currently pending before Judge Whelan is a motion by

National Union seeking clarification of the September 18, 2007

Order Denying National Union’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc.

68.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Relevance

Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits

Case 3:06-cv-00903-W-JMA Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 2 of 17
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

3 06cv0903

discovery regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to

any party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 

Relevant information need not be admissible at trial so long as

the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Id. All discovery is subject

to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C), which provides in

relevant part:

On motion or on its own, the court must limit the

frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by

these rules or by local rule if it determines that: 

(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably

cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained

from some other source that is more

convenient, less burdensome, or less

expensive; 

(ii) the party seeking discovery has had

ample opportunity to obtain the information

by discovery in the action; or 

(iii) the burden or expense of the proposed

discovery outweighs its likely benefit,

considering the needs of the case, the amount

in controversy, the parties’ resources, the

importance of the issues at stake in the

action, and the importance of the discovery

in resolving the issues. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C). It is within the authority of the

court to define the actual scope of discovery to the reasonable

needs of the action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 Advisory Committee

Notes, 2000 Amendment. 

III. DISCUSSION

National Union argues, as an initial matter, that the scope

of discovery available to J&M is limited as a result of the

summary judgment rulings previously issued by Judge Whelan. The

Court, after carefully considering Judge Whelan’s orders,

disagrees. As set forth above, discovery may be obtained

Case 3:06-cv-00903-W-JMA Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 3 of 17
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

1

National Steel and Shipbuilding Company.

2

Given its finding that Judge Whelan’s orders do not restrict the

scope of discovery and the fact that this case has been pending since

March 2006, the Court declines to adopt National Union’s suggestion

(Nat’l Union’s Opp’n at 2 n.1) that it defer ruling on the instant

motion until after Judge Whelan issues his order on the motion for

clarification.

4 06cv0903

regarding “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

party’s claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Because,

as set forth below, all claims alleged in J&M’s Second Amended

Complaint remain viable, J&M may properly seek any information

relevant to these claims. 

National Union argues that the effect of Judge Whelan’s

orders is to narrowly limit discovery to matters pertaining to

the interpretation of the J&M-NASSCO1 contract. Nat’l Union’s

Opp’n at 1. The Court disagrees. While the determination of

coverage may ultimately turn on the interpretation of the J&MNASSCO contract, the net effect of Judge Whelan’s orders is that

genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether there is a

potential for coverage and, therefore, whether National Union had

a duty to defend NASSCO in the underlying Melendez action. 

Because the potential for coverage under the policy has not been

foreclosed, each of Plaintiff’s claims -- including its claim for

bad faith -- remains pending. Absent a contrary ruling on the

motion for clarification, then, the Court finds that Judge

Whelan’s summary judgment orders in no way constrain or limit

J&M’s ability to conduct discovery in this case.2

 

The discovery which J&M presently seeks from National Union

comprises three general categories of information: (1) the Varis

Brown claim, (2) other claims made by other insureds and 

Case 3:06-cv-00903-W-JMA Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 4 of 17
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

5 06cv0903

(3) National Union’s allocation of defense costs. The Court

addresses each of these categories in turn. 

A. Varis Brown Claim 

Requests for Production Nos. 3 and 6 and Special

Interrogatory Nos. 5 and 11 seek information related to the socalled Varis Brown claim. According to J&M, 

The Varis Brown action is uniquely relevant to this

action because it involves the same parties and the

same type of case, yet in the Varis Brown case,

National Union defended NASSCO as an additional insured

in a similar case involving an injury to a J&M

employee, Varis Brown. However, in the Melendez

action, it refused to defend NASSCO.

J&M’s Mem. at 3. J&M contends that information concerning the

Varis Brown claim is relevant to demonstrating whether National

Union acted reasonably in denying coverage for the Melendez

action. Id. at 4. National Union does not contest the fact that

it accepted the defense of the Varis Brown case, but rather

argues that any individual decisions claims handling personnel

may have made with respect to the Varis Brown claim have no

bearing on the issue of whether there was coverage under the

policy for the Melendez claim. Nat’l Union’s Opp’n at 5. 

Importantly, National Union’s arguments focus on whether the

Varis Brown claim can be used by J&M to establish the existence

of coverage for the Melendez claim. National Union provides no

independent argument or authority that the Varis Brown claim

cannot be used to demonstrate the existence of bad faith. In

order to establish a breach of the implied covenant of good faith

and fair dealing under California law, commonly referred to as a

“bad faith” claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) benefits due under

the policy were withheld and (2) the reason for withholding

Case 3:06-cv-00903-W-JMA Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 5 of 17
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

6 06cv0903

benefits was unreasonable or without proper cause. Guebara v.

Allstate Ins. Co., 237 F.3d 987, 992 (9th Cir. 2001). Given the

divergent coverage positions taken by National Union on the Varis

Brown and Melendez claims despite their apparent similarities,

information regarding the Varis Brown claim may well bear upon

the reasonableness of National Union’s decision to deny NASSCO a

defense on the Melendez claim. At a minimum, J&M is entitled to

find out why National Union provided a defense in Varis Brown

when it did not in Melendez. Although it is arguable whether J&M

can use any information it obtains regarding Varis Brown to

establish coverage in Melendez, it may be able to use this

information to demonstrate bad faith on National Union’s part. 

As discussed below, Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior

Court, 31 Cal. 3d 785 (1982), decided by the California Supreme

Court, permits discovery regarding other claims handled by an

insurer involving other insureds in order to establish bad faith. 

Here, the Varis Brown claim involved the same insured and the

same type of insurance policy as the Melendez claim, a fortiori

the Varis Brown claim file is discoverable under Colonial Life. 

The authorities cited by National Union in opposition to

producing information pertaining to the Varis Brown claim (see

Nat’l Union’s Opp’n at 5-6) do not convince the Court that

information regarding Varis Brown is not relevant to the claims

in this case. First, National Union’s argument presumes that the

only reason it provided coverage on Varis Brown was because of an

individual decision made by the claims handler on that case. 

Nat’l Union’s Opp’n at 5-6. However, J&M is not required simply

to accept that explanation; rather, J&M is entitled to explore

Case 3:06-cv-00903-W-JMA Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 6 of 17
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

3

Chatton v. National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 10

Cal. App. 4th 846 (1992), Jordan v. Allstate Ins. Co., 116 Cal. App.

4th 1206 (2004) and Prudential Ins. Co. of America, Inc. v. Superior

Court, 98 Cal. App. 4th 585 (2002).

4

The cases cited by National Union (see n.3, supra) primarily

concern policy interpretation. None of them addresses or refutes the

proposition that a claim file involving the same insured, the same

type of insurance policy and virtually identical underlying facts as

the case under consideration is relevant to the contention that the

insurer acted in bad faith by providing a defense in the former case

while failing to do so in the latter case. 

5

The Court will address Special Interrogatory No. 11 in Section

III.C, infra.

7 06cv0903

precisely why National Union provided a defense in Varis Brown

when it did not in Melendez. Moreover, the authorities cited by

National Union are at odds with the explanation that it is

apparently advancing about the reason for its coverage position

on the Varis Brown claim. The three cases cited by National

Union3 stand for the proposition that claims handlers’ opinions

have no bearing on whether coverage exists under a particular

policy. At the same time, National Union appears to contend that

the coverage decision on the Varis Brown claim was purely the

result of an individual decision made by the claims handler. 

Again, J&M is entitled to find out more about the claims decision

on the Varis Brown file and its potential impact on J&M’s claims

in this case, including its claim that National Union acted in

bad faith in denying coverage for the Melendez claim.4

 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS J&M’s motion with respect to

the requests for information relating to the Varis Brown claim. 

National Union shall provide further responses to Requests for

Production Nos. 3 and 6 and Special Interrogatory No. 5.5 The

Court notes that California Insurance Code § 791.13 prohibits

insurers from providing “personal” or “privileged” information of

Case 3:06-cv-00903-W-JMA Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 7 of 17
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

6

Given that the identity of Varis Brown is not a secret, there is

no need for National Union to redact Varis Brown’s name from the

documents produced. 

8 06cv0903

individuals absent written authorization from the individual. 

Cal. Ins. Code § 791.13. Therefore, National Union shall redact

any personal or privileged information relating to Varis Brown

(including address, social security number and the like), unless

J&M has obtained written authorization from Varis Brown, as

required under California Insurance Code section 791.13(a),

permitting J&M access to this information.6 

B. Other Claims Discovery

Requests for Production Nos. 11, 12 and 13 seek information

relating to other insureds’ claims and complaints against

National Union. Specifically, the requests seek the following:

Request No. 11: Any and all writings tendering a

defense by a purported additional insured, and your

response, for other insureds than J&M ASSOCIATES or

NASSCO, where NATIONAL UNION and/or AIG or any of its

agents denied a tender of defense by a purported

additional insured under a Staffing Services Liability

policy (within the last five years).

Request No. 12: Any and all writings tendering a

defense by a purported additional insured and your

response, for other insureds than J&M ASSOCIATES or

NASSCO, where NATIONAL UNION and/or AIG or any of its

agents accepted a tender of defense by a purported

additional insured (under a Staffing Services Liability

policy within the last five years).

Request No. 13: Any and all Complaints filed in

California state or federal courts against NATIONAL

UNION in the last five years where it was alleged that

NATIONAL UNION denied a defense to an additional

insured under a general liability policy. 

J&M contends that these documents are relevant as J&M intends to

show that National Union has “adopted a policy of denying the

defense of additional insureds for insurance policies like the

one it sold to J&M” as evidence of National Union’s bad faith. 

Case 3:06-cv-00903-W-JMA Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 8 of 17
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

9 06cv0903

J&M’s Mem. at 5. 

J&M relies on Colonial Life in support of its position that

the above discovery requests seek relevant information. In that

case, the California Supreme Court considered whether a plaintiff

could properly obtain discovery regarding other claims handled by

an insurer. The court determined that “[o]ther instances of

alleged unfair settlement practices” were relevant to the issue

of whether the insurer engaged in unfair claim settlement

practices, and that “[d]iscovery aimed at determining the

frequency of alleged unfair settlement practices” was likely to

produce relevant evidence. Colonial Life, 31 Cal.3d at 791-92. 

The court further stated that discovery regarding other claims

handled by an insurer may also be “highly relevant” to a

plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages, and observed that

“[i]ndirect evidence of the elements of punitive damages may be

suggested by a pattern of unfair practices.” Id.

National Union contends that the holding in Colonial Life

does not apply to this case. National Union first argues that

unlike the situation in Colonial Life, the Court here has

narrowly focused the remaining coverage issues on the J&M-NASSCO

contract, not on “broader questions of coverage or wrongful

insurer conduct.” Nat’l Union’s Opp’n at 8. Again, however,

Judge Whelan’s summary judgment orders do not constrain J&M’s

ability to conduct discovery in any way. More importantly,

National Union mistakenly focuses solely on discovery for the

purpose of establishing coverage when it is clear that J&M seeks

discovery concerning other claims as a means of demonstrating

that National Union acted in bad faith. 

Case 3:06-cv-00903-W-JMA Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 9 of 17
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

10 06cv0903

National Union also contends that Colonial Life is

distinguishable because it dealt with an alleged violation of

California Insurance Code § 790.03, which no longer provides a

private right of action against insurers for violation of the

Unfair Practices Act (Cal. Ins. Code § 790 et seq.). Nat’l

Union’s Opp’n at 8 (citing Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins.

Cos., 46 Cal.3d 287 (1988)). Colonial Life has been followed,

however, by California state courts considering not only claims

under § 790.03 of the Insurance Code but also common law “bad

faith” claims. See, e.g., Moore v. American United Life Ins.

Co., 150 Cal. App. 3d 610 (1984). The Court agrees with J&M that

the reasoning in Colonial Life applies whether bad faith is

alleged under a statute or under a common law theory. J&M’s

Reply at 7. 

J&M has thus established, pursuant to Colonial Life, that

discovery regarding other claims handled by National Union is

relevant to J&M’s claims in this action, insofar as the requests

seek information pertaining to the same type of policy at issue

in this case, i.e., Staffing Services Liability policies. Thus,

the Court finds that Request Nos. 11 and 12 seek relevant

information. Request No. 13, which seeks information pertaining

to “general liability” policies, is overbroad in view of the fact

that this case concerns a Staffing Services Liability policy. 

Therefore, the Court finds that Request No. 13 does not seek

relevant information, and DENIES J&M’s motion with respect to

this request.

National Union further contends that responding to the above

discovery requests would be “burdensome and oppressive.” Nat’l

Case 3:06-cv-00903-W-JMA Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 10 of 17
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

11 06cv0903

Union’s Opp’n at 6. Margaret Porcelli, a Complex Claims Director

for National Union, provided a Declaration in opposition to J&M’s

motion setting forth the following in pertinent part:

2. At all relevant times addressed in this

declaration, AIG Domestic Claims, Inc. (“AIGDC”), or

its predecessor organization AIG Technical Services

(“AIGTS”), was responsible for adjusting insurance

claims on behalf of National Union. . . .

. . . .

5. Each year AIGDC and its predecessor AIGTS handle

thousands of claims for National Union. Although AIGDC

and AIGTS maintain their main claim offices in New York

City, they have claim offices throughout the United

States. Closed claims files are sent to offsite

storage facilities throughout the United States.

6. There is no central database, index, source,

spreadsheet or repository - computerized or noncomputerized - which tracks all the litigation filed

against National Union, nor is there any database,

index source, spreadsheet or repository - computerized

or non-computerized - which tracks the types of claims

made in that litigation, the policies involved, or

whether the claims involve additional insured

endorsements. Thus, to respond to J&M’s discovery

requests demanding copies of all lawsuits filed against

National Union in the last five years involving

additional insured endorsements on general liability

policies would literally involve a manual file-by-file

review of tens of thousands of claims files located at

claims offices and storage facilities throughout the

United States. To complete such a file by file review

would require thousands of hours and divert AIGDC and

National Union personnel from their ongoing work

responsibilities.

7. Similarly, there is no central database, index,

source, spreadsheet or repository - computerized or

non-computerized - which would permit AIGDC or AIGTS to

identify claims made on additional insured endorsements

of Staffing Services Liability policies in the last

five years. To respond to J&M’s discovery requests

demanding copies of all claim files involving other

insureds where National Union accepted or rejected the

tender of a claim on the additional insured endorsement

of a Staffing Services Liability policy within the last

five year[s] would require a manual file-by-file review

of thousands of claims files located at claims offices

and storage facilities throughout the United States. 

To complete such a file by file review would require

thousands of hours and divert AIGDC and National Union

Case 3:06-cv-00903-W-JMA Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 11 of 17
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

12 06cv0903

personnel from their ongoing work responsibilities.

Porcelli Decl., ¶¶ 2, 5-7. 

As set forth above, the Court is required to limit discovery

if it determines that “the burden or expense of the proposed

discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Although J&M contends that National Union

should not be permitted to avoid providing information as to

other claims based on its purported inability to efficiently

access information regarding such claims and the disorganized

state of its own claims files (see J&M’s Reply at 5), the

unrefuted evidence presently before the Court demonstrates that

National Union would incur an enormous burden if it were required

to respond to Request Nos. 11 and 12 (and 13) propounded by J&M. 

Therefore, notwithstanding its finding that these requests seek

relevant information, the Court finds that the burden and expense

of this discovery outweigh its likely benefit. The Court

accordingly DENIES J&M’s motion with respect to Requests for

Production Nos. 11 and 12.

This denial as to Requests for Production Nos. 11 and 12 is,

however, without prejudice. J&M is entitled to obtain discovery

in order to attempt to refute the statements contained in Ms.

Porcelli’s declaration. Under Rule 26, a party may obtain

discovery regarding “the existence, description, nature, custody,

condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things

and the identity and location of persons who know of any

discoverable matter.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). J&M may, for

example, depose Ms. Porcelli regarding the contents of her

declaration to demonstrate that the burden or expense of the

Case 3:06-cv-00903-W-JMA Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 12 of 17
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

13 06cv0903

discovery it seeks does not outweigh its likely benefit, or may

depose other appropriate National Union personnel regarding the

organization and location of the other claim files. 

C. Loss Allocation Discovery

Requests for Production Nos. 21-24 and Special Interrogatory

Nos. 6-11 seek information relating to National Union’s

allocation of defense costs. According to J&M, “National Union

has been allocating the costs of its own defense in the present

bad faith action to the loss experience of its insured J&M.” 

J&M’s Mem. at 7. J&M contends that this is improper and that it

demonstrates that National Union “has adopted a policy of dealing

with J&M in bad faith.” Id. J&M points out that its Second

Amended Complaint sets forth allegations regarding this practice

in relation to J&M’s claim for breach of the implied covenant of

good faith and fair dealing. Id. 

The Second Amended Complaint sets forth the following in

pertinent part:

[National Union] breached the implied covenant of good

faith and fair dealing by [its] conduct as alleged

herein, including:

(m) Engaging in retaliatory behavior

contrary to the insured’s interest, by

allocating to the insured’s “loss experience”

the cost of NATIONAL UNION’s defense of the

instant coverage action, causing the insured

to seek replacement general liability

coverage and creating increased difficulties

for the insured in obtaining replacement

coverage, and resulting in higher premiums

for the insured.

Second Am. Compl. ¶ 25(m). National Union counters that this is

an “untenable” theory that is not viable under California law. 

Nat’l Union’s Opp’n at 10. As National Union should be aware,

Case 3:06-cv-00903-W-JMA Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 13 of 17
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

14 06cv0903

however, it is not within this Court’s purview to determine

whether the above allegation should be stricken -- the district

judge must do so. Until and unless the allegation is stricken,

it remains a component of J&M’s bad faith claim and, as such, J&M

is entitled to obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged

matter relevant to the allegation. Moreover, National Union’s

characterization of this allegation as simply a “wrongful nonrenewal theory” (id.) is too narrow. It is clear that J&M’s

allegation, and the discovery it seeks in relation thereto, go

beyond the non-renewal of J&M’s policy by National Union. 

Rather, J&M seeks this discovery as evidence of National Union’s

alleged bad faith. 

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS J&M’s motion with respect to

the requests for information relating to National Union’s

allocation of defense costs. National Union shall provide

further responses to Requests for Production Nos. 21-24 and

Special Interrogatory Nos. 6-11. 

D. Privilege Log

J&M requests that the Court order National Union to provide

a privilege log for any information it withholds or redacts on

the basis of privilege. The Court orders both parties to fully

comply with the requirements of Rule 26(b)(5)(A) with respect to

any discoverable information that is withheld from production as

privileged, and directs the parties to prepare any privilege logs

in accordance with the ten requirements set forth in Miller v.

Pancucci, 141 F.R.D. 292, 302 (C.D. Cal. 1992).

E. Request for Sanctions

J&M contends that sanctions are warranted against National

Case 3:06-cv-00903-W-JMA Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 14 of 17
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

7

When a motion to compel is granted in part and denied in part,

the court may apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C). The Court declines to do so here given its

finding that both sides asserted their positions in good faith.

15 06cv0903

Union for violating Rules 11 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure. J&M’s Mem. at 8-9. The Court finds that sanctions

are not warranted. First, Rule 11 is inapplicable to discovery. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(d). Second, Rule 37 requires the payment of

the moving party’s reasonable expenses incurred in making a

motion for an order compelling discovery only if the motion is

granted; the court must not order this payment if the opposing

party’s nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially

justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses

unjust. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). Here, the Court finds that

National Union’s objections to the requested discovery -- which

the Court has sustained in part -- were asserted in good faith,

and that the circumstances do not justify the imposition of

sanctions. J&M’s request for an award of its attorneys’ fees is

accordingly DENIED.7

F. Discovery Addressed in Plaintiff’s “Sur-Reply” and

National Union’s Response Thereto

As memorialized in the Order Following Discovery Conference

dated January 9, 2008, National Union agreed that notwithstanding

its objections, it would produce certain documents responsive to

certain portions of J&M’s written discovery requests. According

to J&M, it received these documents, which relate to Requests for

Production Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 and 20, on or around

February 8, 2008. J&M’s Sur-Reply at 1-2. J&M contends that

National Union’s production was deficient, and requests that the

Case 3:06-cv-00903-W-JMA Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 15 of 17
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

8

The Court notes, for example, that although National Union

claims it does not have “commercial ‘advertising materials’ for

Staffing Services Liability policies” (see Nat’l Union’s Resp. to SurReply at 4), its response to Request for Production No. 7, which seeks

these materials, states that “National Union will produce nonprivileged documents responsive to this request, if any, within its

care, custody, and control . . .” (see Nat’l Union’s Amended

Objections and Responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for

Production of Documents, attached as Ex. C to Decl. of Scott Ingold in

Support of Sur-Reply). 

16 06cv0903

Court order National Union to further respond to the discovery. 

Specifically, J&M contends that although National Union produced

documents Bates-stamped 294 through 609, only three pages of

documents, those numbered 331-333, were responsive to the

pertinent document requests. 

After considering the arguments set forth in J&M’s Sur-Reply

and in National Union’s Response thereto, the Court ORDERS that

National Union serve amended responses to Requests for Production

Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 16 and 20. For each Request,

National Union shall specifically identify, by Bates-number,

which of the documents it produced are responsive to each

particular request. If no responsive documents exist as to a

particular request, National Union’s amended response shall

specifically and concisely state that fact.8

 National Union’s

amended responses shall be served by no later than March 14,

2008. If, after receiving the amended responses, J&M still

believes that any of National Union’s responses are deficient,

counsel shall meet and confer, in person, concerning the

remaining disputed issues. If the parties are unable to resolve

their disputes following the meet and confer, J&M shall contact

the undersigned’s chambers to obtain a hearing date for a new

motion to compel. If J&M files a motion to compel, it will be

Case 3:06-cv-00903-W-JMA Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 16 of 17
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

17 06cv0903

required to specifically explain, with respect to each individual

request at issue, which of National Union’s responses are

deficient and why J&M is entitled to the discovery it seeks. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court:

1. GRANTS J&M’s motion to compel further responses to

Requests for Production Nos. 3 and 6 and Special Interrogatory

No. 5;

2. DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE J&M’s motion to compel further

responses to Requests for Production Nos. 11-12;

3. DENIES J&M’s motion to compel further responses to

Request for Production No. 13;

4. GRANTS J&M’s motion to compel further responses to

Requests for Production Nos. 21-24 and Special Interrogatory Nos.

6-11; 

5. DENIES J&M’s request for sanctions; and 

6. ORDERS that National Union serve amended discovery

responses to Requests for Production Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15,

16 and 20 by no later than March 14, 2008. Counsel shall then

meet and confer, in person, concerning any remaining disputed

issues. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 4, 2008

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00903-W-JMA Document 89 Filed 03/04/08 Page 17 of 17