Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00649/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00649-8/pdf.json

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RLC INDUSTRIES CO. and ROSEBURG 

FOREST PRODCUTS CO., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

LIBERTY INSURANCE 

CORPORATION, 

Defendant.

No. 2:23-cv-0649 TLN DB

ORDER

 On June 13, 2024, this matter came before the undersigned pursuant to Local Rule 

302(c)(1) for hearing of plaintiffs’ motion to compel. (ECF No. 46.) Attorney Rachel Hudgins 

appeared via Zoom on behalf of plaintiffs. Attorney Mary Gregory appeared via Zoom on behalf 

of the defendant. (ECF No. 61.) 

 During oral argument defense counsel argued that the motion to compel was moot because 

the deadline for fact discovery had closed. At this same time plaintiff’s counsel lost internet 

connectivity. Accordingly, on June 14, 2024, the undersigned issued an order continuing the 

hearing to June 20, 2024, and ordering the parties to file a supplemental joint statement. (ECF 

No. 62.) On June 20, 2024, the parties filed the supplemental statement. (ECF No. 63.) 

////

Case 2:23-cv-00649-TLN-SCR Document 64 Filed 06/24/24 Page 1 of 3
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

 After reviewing the supplemental statement, the undersigned is satisfied that plaintiff’s 

motion is timely.

1

 The motion was filed, and would have been heard, prior to the close of fact 

discovery, however, the hearing was continued through no fault of the plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 46, 

50, 52.) 

 The parties’ dispute concerns two interrogatories: Interrogatory No. 6 and Interrogatory 

No. 10. Interrogatory No. 6 seeks all facts supporting the claim plaintiff Roseburg Forest 

Products failed to mitigate damages. (JS (ECF No. 58) at 11.) In their supplemental statement, 

defendant offers to supplement its response to this interrogatory but claims to need a court order 

because it “cannot supplement its response to fact discovery” because the deadline for fact 

discovery has passed. (ECF No. 63 at 3.) That is incorrect. Defendant has a continuing duty to 

supplement discovery responses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e). Nonetheless, defendant will be given the 

requested court order. 

 Moreover, given defendant’s pending supplemental response, the parties will be ordered 

to further meet and confer after defendant’s supplemental response. Although it is clear plaintiff 

does not believe defendant’s supplemental response will fully resolve this discovery dispute, the 

undersigned’s preference is to resolve discovery disputes after the parties have exhausted their 

efforts at voluntary resolution. 

Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 10 initially sought the identity of the law firms defendant 

retained to defend actions “similar” to the Mill Fire at issue here, including the case name, nature 

of the claim, amount of exposure, and rates paid. (ECF No. 58 at 16.) On May 28, 2024, plaintiff 

proposed an alternative method of searching for this information based on “a list of 30 major fires 

that occurred in California from 2017 to 2022.” (Id. Id. at 23.) Defendant contends that it only 

had “36 hours . . . to consider” this proposal. (Id. at 24.) 

 The parties will also be given additional time to meet and confer over this issue. 

Defendant is advised that, although the undersigned accepts that settling on precise terms and 

conducting searches may be of some difficulty, the discovery plaintiff seeks via this request 

1

 Having reviewed the parties’ briefing, the undersigned finds this matter suitable for resolution 

without a hearing pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). 

Case 2:23-cv-00649-TLN-SCR Document 64 Filed 06/24/24 Page 2 of 3
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

appears to be of significant relevance. The undersigned’s hope is that the parties can reach an 

agreement on narrow search terms, which would avoid the court imposing search terms which 

may be unnecessarily broad. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

 1. The June 25, 2024 hearing of plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 46) is vacated; 

 2. Within fourteen days of the date of this order defendant shall produce supplemental 

discovery; 

 3. Within twenty-eight days of the date of this order the parties shall meet and confer to 

discuss defendant’s supplemental production, search terms, and any other matter relevant to this 

discovery dispute; and 

4. Within fourteen days thereafter the parties shall either file a withdrawal of the motion 

to compel or contact the undersigned’s courtroom deputy for an available hearing date. 

DATED: June 24, 2024 /s/ DEBORAH BARNES 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DLB:6

DB/orders/orders.civil/rlc0649.oah2.061324

Case 2:23-cv-00649-TLN-SCR Document 64 Filed 06/24/24 Page 3 of 3