Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02182/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02182-39/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 12:635 Breach of 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

LENNAR MARE ISLAND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, 

et al.,

Defendants.

LENNAR MARE ISLAND, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

No. 2:12-cv-2182-KJM-KJN

 

 No. 2:16-cv-0291-KJM-KJN

ORDER

On March 23, 2017, these cases were before the undersigned to address Steadfast 

Insurance Company’s (“Steadfast”) motion for a protective order and to quash deposition notices 

that Lennar Mare Island, LLC (“Lennar”) served on Steve Hatch, the Chief Claims Officer for 

Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”), Steadfast’s parent company, and John 

Case 2:12-cv-02182-KJM-KJN Document 489 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 4
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

Mahoney, the Senior Vice President for Technical Claims at Zurich.

1

 (ECF No. 471 in Case No. 

12-cv-2182; ECF No. 102 in Case No. 2:16-cv-0291.)2 Attorney John Purcell appeared on behalf 

of Steadfast. Attorney Allan Packer appeared on behalf of Lennar. Attorney John McConkie

appeared telephonically on behalf of intervenor plaintiff United States. Attorney Amanda 

Hairston appeared telephonically on behalf of counterclaimant/counter defendant CH2M Hill 

Constructors, Inc. 

Based on Steadfast’s motions and the parties’ joint statements regarding these discovery 

disputes, other relevant filings, and oral arguments, and for the reasons discussed below and on 

the record during the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The discovery completion deadline in both actions is extended to April 14, 2017, for 

the sole purpose of tentatively scheduling the depositions of Steve Hatch and John 

Mahoney.

3

 The current April 7, 2017 discovery completion deadline remains in place 

in both actions for all other non-expert discovery, including the depositions of any 

other individuals. All other deadlines set forth in the operative pretrial scheduling 

order filed in both actions on June 28, 2016, remain in effect.

2. The parties shall forthwith schedule mutually agreed upon tentative deposition dates 

for both Steve Hatch and John Mahoney set prior to the April 14, 2017 extended 

deadline, but after the deposition of Robert Koscielniak scheduled for April 5, 2017.

 

1 As discussed during the hearing, the court finds that both Steve Hatch and John Mahoney are 

high-level executives within Zurich, thereby qualifying them as “apex witnesses” for purposes of 

determining whether their depositions should be taken. “In determining whether to allow an apex 

deposition, courts consider (1) whether the deponent has unique first-hand, non-repetitive 

knowledge of the facts at issue in the case and (2) whether the party seeking the deposition has 

exhausted other less intrusive discovery methods.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd, 282 

F.R.D. 259, 263 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the court uses 

this standard to assess whether Lennar should be permitted to take the depositions of Steve Hatch 

and John Mahoney.

2

The motions filed in each action are identical.

3

The undersigned modifies the discovery deadline in the manner set forth above pursuant to the 

authority granted to the magistrate judge in the operative pretrial scheduling order filed in both 

actions on June 28, 2016. (ECF No. 382 in Case No. 12-cv-2182; ECF No. 30 in Case No. 2:16-

cv-0291.)

Case 2:12-cv-02182-KJM-KJN Document 489 Filed 03/24/17 Page 2 of 4
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

3. The court is disinclined to allow the deposition of Steve Hatch to proceed because it 

finds that Lennar has not made an adequate showing that his deposition is necessary to 

obtain the testimony it seeks, especially in light of the upcoming depositions of lower 

level employees, in particular, Robert Koscielniak, who may have more direct 

knowledge of the issues, and the representation of Steadfast’s counsel during the 

hearing on this matter that Steadfast would be willing to enter a stipulation regarding 

what Steve Hatch would testify to addressing the extent of his personal knowledge, or 

lack thereof, as to the handling of the insurance claims at issue in these actions. 

Nevertheless, the court is amenable to revisiting the issue of whether Steve Hatch’s 

deposition should proceed after the parties have taken the deposition of Robert 

Koscielniak and have had the opportunity to determine whether that individual’s 

deposition testimony as well as any agreed stipulation has alleviated Lennar’s need to 

obtain testimony from Steve Hatch.

4. The court is inclined to permit Lennar to take the deposition of John Mahoney after 

the deposition of Robert Koscielniak based on its finding that Lennar has established 

that Mr. Mahoney had at least some hands-on involvement with the insurance claims 

at issue in this action and may hold some relevant, unique first-hand knowledge 

regarding the handling of those claims. However, the court strongly encourages the 

parties to first discuss the possibility of stipulating to what John Mahoney would 

testify to regarding the extent of his personal knowledge as to the handling of the 

insurance claims at issue in these actions in lieu of proceeding with his deposition. 

Furthermore, the court is amenable to revisiting the issue of whether John Mahoney’s 

deposition should proceed after the parties have taken the deposition of Robert 

Koscielniak and have had the opportunity to determine whether that individual’s 

deposition testimony and any stipulation has alleviated Lennar’s need to obtain 

testimony from John Mahoney.

5. The parties should be prepared to discuss the issue of whether Steve Hatch’s and John 

Mahoney’s depositions should proceed in light of the testimony obtained from Robert 

Case 2:12-cv-02182-KJM-KJN Document 489 Filed 03/24/17 Page 3 of 4
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

Koscielniak’s deposition during the hearing on Lennar’s and Steadfast’s pending 

motions to compel discovery in both actions, all of which are currently noticed before 

the undersigned for an April 6, 2017 hearing. In the event the parties resolve their 

discovery disputes addressed by their pending motions to compel prior to the hearing

date, or if the hearing on those motions is either continued or vacated for any other 

reason, the parties may stipulate to holding a telephonic conference with the 

undersigned regarding whether Lennar should be permitted to take the tentatively 

scheduled depositions of Steve Hatch and/or John Mahoney in light of the deposition 

of Robert Koscielniak and any other relevant discovery that has occurred in the time 

since the March 23, 2017 hearing on Steadfast’s present motion for a protective order.

6. This order resolves the motion for a protective order filed at ECF No. 471 in Case No. 

12-cv-2182, and ECF No. 102 in Case No. 2:16-cv-0291.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 24, 2017

Case 2:12-cv-02182-KJM-KJN Document 489 Filed 03/24/17 Page 4 of 4