Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07360/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07360-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- 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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY WISE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

RELIASTAR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY;

and DOES 1 through 20, Inclusive

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 06-7360 SC

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO

STAY DISCOVERY

PRODUCTION

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Ex Parte

Application to Quash Subpoena and Prohibit the Production of Tax

Returns or for an Order Staying Discovery Production. Docket No.

23. After reviewing the Plaintiff's submissions, the Court GRANTS 

the Motion to Stay Discovery Production.

On October 13, 2006, plaintiff Mary Wise ("Plaintiff"), filed

a complaint in the Superior Court of California alleging that

defendant Reliastar Life Insurance Company ("Defendant")

unlawfully refused to pay Plaintiff's disability benefits. Compl.

¶¶ 3-5, Ex. A, Attach. to Def.'s Pet. for Removal, Docket No. 1. 

Defendant filed a Petition for Removal to the United States

District Court on November 30, 2006. Docket No. 1. The parties

had agreed to a schedule for discovery. Docket No. 22. On

September 14, 2007, Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for an

order to quash Defendant's subpoena seeking Plaintiff's tax

Case 3:06-cv-07360-SC Document 25 Filed 09/17/07 Page 1 of 4
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

returns or, in the alternative, an order staying the production of

the requested tax returns to allow further briefing and argument

on whether Defendant's discovery request for the tax returns is

justified. Ex Parte Application, Docket No. 23, at 3.

II. BACKGROUND

According to Plaintiff, she is a former registered nurse who

worked for Marin County as a detention registered nurse until on

or about June 23, 2003, when she stopped working as a result of

disability. See Ex Parte Application at 1. Plaintiff filed for

disability benefits under the disability insurance policy issued

by Defendant to employees of Marin County. Id. at 1:24-25. 

Defendant evaluated Plaintiff's disability insurance claim and

paid her benefits until November 20, 2005, at which time

Plaintiff's disability insurance benefits were terminated. Id. at

1-2. Plaintiff subsequently filed suit against Defendant in state

court and Defendant removed the action to this Court. Pet. to

Remove. 

According to Plaintiff, various discovery has been conducted

by both parties. Ex Parte Application 2. Depositions of

Defendant and several of the treating physicians have been taken. 

Id. at 2. In addition, Plaintiff's bank records and retirement

account records have been produced or are being subpoenaed. Id. 

On September 5, 2007, Defendant served a subpoena on Plaintiff's

tax preparer, Capital Business Services, Inc. ("Capital

Business"). Id. In the subpoena Defendant seeks production of

all records of Plaintiff maintained by Capital Business, which

Case 3:06-cv-07360-SC Document 25 Filed 09/17/07 Page 2 of 4
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

1

 Plaintiff does not contest the production, by Capital

Business, of her W-2 forms. Ex Parte Application 2. 

3

consist of Plaintiff's tax returns and W-2 forms. Id. at 2-3. 

According to Plaintiff, these records are to be turned over to

Defendant on Tuesday, September 18, 2007. Id. at 2.

Plaintiff has filed the Ex Parte Application in an effort to

prevent Capital Business from producing the requested tax returns. 

Id.1

 Plaintiff argues that her tax returns are irrelevant to her

disability insurance claim and that production of the tax returns

without a compelling reason is a violation of her right to

privacy. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

Before the Court rules on Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application

for an Order to Quash the Subpoena for the production of

Plaintiff's tax returns, it orders the Defendant to file an

opposition brief by 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, September 19, 2007. 

Plaintiff may file a reply brief by 12:00 p.m., Thursday,

September 20, 2007. The matter then stands submitted with no oral

argument. Until the Court rules, discovery in this case is hereby

stayed.

Case 3:06-cv-07360-SC Document 25 Filed 09/17/07 Page 3 of 4
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 4

IV. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff's Motion to Stay

Discovery Production is GRANTED pending Defendants' opportunity to

oppose the motion. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2007 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-07360-SC Document 25 Filed 09/17/07 Page 4 of 4