Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-02506-72/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY BOWOTO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CHEVRON CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C 99-02506 SI

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

Via letter brief, plaintiffs have moved to compel production of documents related to defendants’

insurance coverage for the incidents and injuries at issue in this case. For the following reasons, the

Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART plaintiffs’ motion.

In 2002, plaintiffs served a request for production of documents related to any insurance carried

by defendants that would cover defendants’ liabilities since January 1, 1997. See Pl.’s Ex. 1.

Defendants replied with objections, but also stated that they “will produce any insurance policies that

may potentially cover plaintiffs’ claims in this action.” Pl.’s Ex. 2. Despite this response, defendants

never produced any documents evidencing relevant insurance policies. 

The discovery period ended, and the discovery motion cutoff date – January 27, 2006 – passed.

The parties filed multiple discovery disputes, but none related to insurance policies. According to

plaintiffs, defense counsel represented that no such policies existed. Plaintiffs continued under such

belief until discovery in a parallel state court case suggested that defendants did in fact have relevant

insurance coverage. In light of this revelation, plaintiffs now move to reopen discovery to seek policy

documents and related communications between defendants and their insurance carriers.

Having considered the papers submitted, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs’ motion to compel

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1647 Filed 09/14/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

production of the relevant insurance policies. Defendants do not now deny that such policies exist, and

they promised to produce them. The Court holds defendants to their promise. Moreover, under Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), defendants have an ongoing duty to supplement and correct incomplete

or inaccurate discovery responses.

Plaintiffs also seek insurance-related documents besides the actual policies, such as

communications between defendants and their insurance carriers. The Court DENIES this broader

request. Fact discovery ended more than one-and-a-half years ago. Furthermore, it appears that

plaintiffs became aware of the insurance policies via discovery in the state court proceedings almost two

years ago. See Pl.’s Exs. 4, 8 (defendants’ December 2005 interrogatory responses, cited by plaintiffs

as an “implicit acknowledge[ment] that there were, in fact, insurance policies that might cover the

incidents at issue” (Mot. at 3)). The Court therefore DENIES plaintiffs’ request to reopen discovery to

compel production of insurance-related documents outside of the actual policy documents. [Docket No.

1644]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-02506-SI Document 1647 Filed 09/14/07 Page 2 of 2