Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03178/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03178-7/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 1 Plaintiffs’ request to belatedly file their reply papers is granted. Generally,

this court does not condone the failure to make timely filings. Nevertheless, here, most of

plaintiffs’ papers were timely submitted, with the exception of a few reply briefs which were

filed just after the midnight filing deadline and some exhibits which were filed the following

afternoon. There has been no prejudice to Allstate by the delay.

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EDUARDO CECENA and MARIA CECENA,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY and

DOES 1-100,

Defendants. /

No. C05-03178 JF (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO COMPEL RE SECOND

SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS

[Re: Docket No. 57]

This insurance action, based on the court’s diversity jurisdiction, stems from a fire that

damaged plaintiffs’ home on December 14, 2003. At the time of the fire, their home was

insured under a homeowners policy issued by defendant Allstate Insurance Company

(“Allstate”). In this lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that Allstate handled their claim in bad faith and

has not made full or timely payment of benefits under their policy.

Presently before this court is plaintiffs’ “Motion to Compel Allstate to Produce

Documents for Combined Request No. 2.” Allstate opposes the motion. Upon consideration of

the papers filed by the parties,1

 as well as the arguments made at the November 7, 2006 hearing,

the court issues the following order.

*E-FILED ON 11/9/2006*

Case 5:05-cv-03178-JF Document 81 Filed 11/09/06 Page 1 of 5
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

1. Preliminarily, Allstate argues that the instant motion should be denied because

plaintiffs unduly delayed in filing it and therefore waived their right to compel the discovery. 

Here, Allstate points out that its interrogatory responses at issue were served on January 17,

2006. Generally, discovery motions should be made within a reasonable time. The instant

motion was not filed until a few days before the October 6, 2006 discovery cutoff, and plaintiffs

have not explained why they could not move for relief sooner. Nevertheless, the court’s Civil

Local Rules permit parties to file discovery motions up to seven court days after the discovery

cutoff. See CIV. L.R. 26-2. Moreover, it appears that the requested discovery reasonably can be

accomplished without jeopardizing the January 7, 2007 trial set by the District Court. 

Accordingly, this court declines to deny the instant motion as untimely.

2. Document Request No. 5 asks Allstate to “[p]roduce all personnel records from

1/1/2000 to the present for Mr. Steve Bryan that pertain to his performance reviews.” (See

Shepardson Decl., Ex. 5 at p. 4). Plaintiffs argue that the requested information is relevant to

their claim that Allstate acted in bad faith, as well as to their claim for punitive damages. At the

motion hearing, plaintiffs clarified that they are seeking discovery only of Bryan’s performance

reviews, and not of Bryan’s entire personnel file. Additionally, as stated in connection with

their separate motion on interrogatories seeking similar discovery, plaintiffs agree that Allstate

may redact information identifying other insureds. Allstate contends that the requested

information is irrelevant. It further argues that the requested information is protected by third

party privacy interests and that plaintiffs have not shown the requisite “compelling need” for

that information.

Generally, even if personnel records are relevant, discovery of such files is

permitted only upon a showing of “compelling need.” See Bd. of Trustees v. Super. Ct., 119

Cal. App.3d 516, 525, 174 Cal. Rptr. 160, 164 (1981) (“And even when discovery of private

information is found directly relevant to the issues of ongoing litigation, it will not be

automatically allowed; there must then be a careful balancing of the compelling public need for

discovery against the fundamental right of privacy.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 

Moreover, a “court should first examine the file in camera and order disclosure of only that

Case 5:05-cv-03178-JF Document 81 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 5
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

3

information which might be relevant to the lawsuit.” El Dorado Savings & Loan Ass’n v.

Super. Ct., 190 Cal. App.3d 342, 346, 235 Cal. Rptr. 303, 305 (1987).

Plaintiffs’ briefs are not the model of clarity. Nevertheless, plaintiffs say that

Bryan was the “main adjuster” on their claim and that his activities are therefore central to their

case. At oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel further asserted that Bryan’s bid on their home

repairs was underestimated and that he was responsible for certain payments (e.g., engineering

fees) which plaintiffs say were unduly delayed. Plaintiffs also point out that while the instant

motion was being briefed, Allstate served an answer to plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 11,

indicating that their claim was not adjusted in accordance with Allstate’s policies and

procedures.

Bryan’s performance reviews are relevant insofar as they may show his

qualifications, experience and professional competence, as well as instances of negligence or

malfeasance by Bryan. Allstate argues that plaintiffs have presented no basis to believe that

Bryan did anything wrong. Here, it asserts that its answer to plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 11

was not based upon Bryan’s conduct, but upon that of another employee (Catherine Smith). 

Nevertheless, this court concludes that plaintiffs should be given some leeway to explore that

contention. Morever, it appears that at this stage of the litigation, the requested discovery is not

available through less intrusive means. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion as to Document Request

No. 5 is GRANTED, subject, however, to a further order of this court following an in camera

review to determine what information ought to be produced. Allstate shall submit Bryan’s

performance reviews to this court for an in camera review forthwith, and in any event, no later

than November 15, 2006.

3. With respect to Document Request No. 7, plaintiffs seek “all policies and

procedures documents, including local memorandums [sic], guidelines or notes, regarding

Allstate’s procedures and duties to inform insureds after a loss occurs of the benefits they are

entitled to under the policies.” (See Shepardson Decl., Ex. 5 at p. 5). They argue that this

information is relevant to their contention that Allstate knew it had a duty to disclose benefits to

plaintiffs, but nonetheless failed to fulfill that duty, particularly as to plaintiffs’ claimed

Case 5:05-cv-03178-JF Document 81 Filed 11/09/06 Page 3 of 5
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

additional living expenses. Plaintiffs say that they seek documents other than Allstate’s

“Claims Manual: Policy, Practices, Procedures” (which has already been produced). Allstate

argues that this request is vague as to “policies and procedures,” “local memorandums,”

“guidelines” and “notes,” and contends that the request is overbroad, burdensome and seeks

irrelevant information.

As drafted, Request No. 7 is overbroad as to time, as well as to the types of

insurance policies it purports to cover. Nevertheless, the request reasonably can be read as

seeking documentation other than Allstate’s “Claims Manual: Policy, Practices, Procedures” –

namely, national and regional (i.e., Northern California) policies, manuals, rules, guidelines or

memoranda which refer to, relate to, amend, clarify, amplify or interpret Allstate’s procedures

that explain what should or should not be told to insureds about their benefits after an alleged

loss has occurred. Such documents are relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence re plaintiffs’ claims that Allstate acted in bad faith in

adjusting their property claim. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion as to this request is GRANTED;

however, the request will be limited to documents in effect between December 2003 and May

2005 which bear upon homeowners’ policies like the one held by plaintiffs. Allstate shall

produce any non-privileged documents that are responsive to this request (as clarified by the

court) no later than November 20, 2006. If, after diligent inquiry and reasonable search,

Allstate has no responsive documents, then it shall submit by November 20, 2006 affidavit(s)

from corporate officer(s) with requisite authority and knowledge so attesting.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

November 9, 2006

Case 5:05-cv-03178-JF Document 81 Filed 11/09/06 Page 4 of 5
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

5

5:05-cv-3178 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Michael A. Barnes mbarnes@sonnenschein.com, msaplala@sonnenschein.com 

Sonia Renee Martin smartin@sonnenschein.com, clakes@sonnenschein.com;

msaplala@sonnenschein.com 

John A. Shepardson johnshepardson@hotmail.com 

Jessica Lou Woelfel jwoelfel@sonnenschein.com, ddonner@sonnenschein.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have

not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:05-cv-03178-JF Document 81 Filed 11/09/06 Page 5 of 5