Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02124/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-md-02124-8/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN RE CONSECO LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY LIFETREND INSURANCE

MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES

LITIGATION

 /

No. C 10-2124 SI

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO POSTPONE DEPOSITIONS

(Docket No. 36)

Plaintiffs have filed a request for an order postponing two depositions of two non-party life

insurance brokers, Lonnie Poole and Harry Winsten, from whom plaintiffs purchased some of the life

insurance policies at issue in this case. According to plaintiffs, Conseco notified plaintiffs on May 13,

2010, the day before plaintiffs filed this request, that it wished to schedule the depositions for May 21

and May 25 so that both depositions could occur prior to the hearing on plaintiffs’ motion for class

certification. Conseco initially noticed the depositions in March to occur in mid-April, but the

depositions did not go forward on the April dates. 

Plaintiffs seek to postpone the depositions on three grounds: (1) that Conseco has not produced

relevant electronic documents (“e-discovery”) which plaintiffs require in order to prepare to examine

the deponents; (2) that Conseco is seeking to gain a tactical advantage by scheduling the depositions so

late; and (3) that the depositions are not likely to elicit information relevant to class certification, given

that plaintiffs’ certification request is focused on Conseco’s standard form insurance policies, not the

manner in which the policies were sold by independent brokers. Plaintiffs ask the Court to postpone

the depositions until such time as Conseco has produced the requested e-discovery.

Conseco counters each of plaintiffs’ contentions as follows. With respect to e-discovery,

Conseco states that the parties are still in the process of negotiating a protocol for recovery and

Case 3:10-md-02124-SI Document 47 Filed 05/28/10 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 electronic documents. Conseco notes that plaintiffs have not taken the position that ediscovery must be completed to enable them to prepare for the deposition of any other witness,

including party witnesses. With respect to plaintiffs’ “tactical advantage” argument, Conseco points

out that it attempted to schedule the depositions prior to the date its opposition to the class certification

motion was due, and that the delay actually harms Conseco as much as it harms plaintiffs. Finally, with

respect to the relevance of the information sought, Conseco asserts that because no standardized

document supports plaintiffs’ expectation that their premiums would “vanish,” Conseco needs to depose

the agents to determine whether the expectation of vanishing premiums is instead based upon

“inherently idiosyncratic alleged representations from these agents.” 

The Court agrees with Conseco that plaintiffs have not shown good cause for postponing the

depositions. In the Court’s view, the information Conseco seeks to elicit from the agents is highly

relevant to class certification. The Court does not believe that Conseco will obtain any tactical

advantage from the late depositions; rather, the Court agrees with Conseco that the timing of the

depositions harms both parties equally, and believes that permitting the depositions to go forward will

at least provide the parties the opportunity to seek permission from the Court to make supplemental

submissions. Additionally, plaintiffs have failed to adequately explain why further e-discovery is

needed to enable them to prepare for the depositions.

Plaintiffs’ motion to postpone the depositions of Mr. Poole and Mr. Winsten is therefore

DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 28, 2010 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-md-02124-SI Document 47 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 2