Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02182/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02182-32/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 November 3, 2016, these cases were before the undersigned to address 

defendant/counterclaimant Steadfast Insurance Company’s (“Steadfast”) motion to quash the 

third party subpoenas plaintiff/counter defendant Lennar Mare Island, LLC (“Lennar”) served on 

non-party reinsurers General Reinsurance Corporation, Guy Carpenter & Company, LLC, 

Case 2:12-cv-02182-KJM-KJN Document 414 Filed 11/04/16 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

Odyssey Re Holdings Corp., Swiss Re America Holding Corporation, and Transatlantic 

Reinsurance Company (collectively “reinsurers”). (Case No. 12-cv-2182, ECF No. 393; Case 

No. 2:16-cv-0291, ECF No. 39.)1 Attorney Allan Packer appeared on behalf of Lennar. 

Attorneys Dale Oliver and Jack Baumann appeared on behalf of Steadfast. Attorneys John 

McConkie, Serajul Ali, and John Jacobson 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 this discovery 

dispute, 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. Steadfast’s motions to quash (Case No. 12-cv-2182, ECF No. 393; Case No. 2:16-cv0291, ECF No. 39) are DENIED. The court finds that the information requested 

through the subpoenas is relevant to the issues in this case and, to the extent Steadfast 

has standing to quash the subpoenas directed at the third party reinsurers, see

California Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Chico Scrap Metal, Inc., 299 F.R.D. 638, 643 

(E.D. Cal. 2014) (“The general rule . . . is that a party has no standing to quash a 

subpoena served upon a third party, except as to claims of privilege relating to the 

documents being sought.”); Wahoo Int’l, Inc. v. Phix Doctor, Inc., 2014 WL 3573400, 

at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2014) (“Under FRCP 45(c)(3), a party lacks standing to 

challenge a subpoena issued to a non-party unless the party claims a personal right or 

privilege with respect to the documents requested in the subpoena.”), it fails to meet 

its burden in showing that it holds a personal right or privilege with regard to any 

specific documents sought from the reinsurers. Accordingly, the third party reinsurers 

shall produce documents responsive to the requests set forth in Lennar’s subpoenas 

within a reasonable timeframe. If a reinsurer subject to one of the subpoenas has any 

objections to the subpoena requests directed towards it, that reinsurer may file a 

 

1

The motions to quash filed in both actions are identical. Accordingly, this order treats 

Steadfast’s two motions to quash as a single motion.

Case 2:12-cv-02182-KJM-KJN Document 414 Filed 11/04/16 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

properly noticed motion to quash or modify the subpoena on its own behalf. Any such 

motions should be filed as soon as reasonably possible.

2. To the extent the parties believe a protective order regarding the documents to be 

produced by the third party reinsurers pursuant to this order is necessary, the parties

shall work cooperatively to develop such a stipulated order with provisions 

appropriate to address the parties’ concerns regarding the reinsurers’ production in 

response to the subpoenas.

3. The court’s April 7, 2015 order in 2:12-cv-2182 that the parties be required to meet in 

person to meet and confer regarding any discovery disputes in that action prior to 

filing a discovery motion (ECF No. 263 at 4, 9-10) is VACATED. The parties may 

satisfy the meet and confer requirement telephonically or through other remote means 

prior to filing future discovery motions provided that such communications are not 

treated as a perfunctory exercise.

4. This order resolves the motions to quash filed at ECF No. 393 in Case No. 12-cv2182, and ECF No. 39 in Case No. 2:16-cv-0291.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2016

Case 2:12-cv-02182-KJM-KJN Document 414 Filed 11/04/16 Page 3 of 3