Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03178/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03178-8/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

NOT FOR CITATION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 (1) GRANTING ALLSTATE’S

“MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OR

RECONSIDERATION”; AND (2)

CLARIFYING NOVEMBER 9, 2006

DISCOVERY ORDERS

[Re: Docket No. 88]

Defendant Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) moves for leave to file a motion for

clarification or reconsideration as to this court’s “Order Granting in Part and Denying In Part

Plaintiffs’ ‘Motion to Compel Allstate to Produce Documents for Maria Cecena’s Document

Request No. 2.’” That order (see Docket No. 77) was issued on November 9, 2006. Allstate’s

motion also pertains, in part, to all five discovery orders issued by this court on that same date. 

Plaintiffs oppose the motion. This court construes the motion as one seeking clarification of its

discovery orders. Upon consideration of the papers filed by the parties, this court GRANTS the

motion as follows:

1. This court ordered Allstate to produce its Claims Core Process Review

(“CCPR”) documents “which pertain to property and casualty claims.” (See Nov. 9, 2006

Order, Docket No. 77 at 2:19-20). Allstate seeks clarification as to whether its CCPR

*E-FILED ON 12/7/2006*

Case 5:05-cv-03178-JF Document 101 Filed 12/07/06 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

“casualty” documents must be produced. Although plaintiffs claim that Allstate did not meetand-confer about its desire to seek clarification of this issue, the record presented indicates that

the parties did confer by telephone and letter before the instant motion was filed. (Woelfel

Decl., ¶¶ 6-7 and Ex. 2).

The ruling in question was based upon the court’s understanding (in light of

statements made by defense counsel at the November 7, 2006 motion hearing) that “property”

claims (i.e., the type of claim at issue in the instant litigation) were addressed in a single section

of Allstate’s CCPR documents together with “casualty” claims. (See Nov. 9, 2006 Order,

Docket No. 77 at 2:11-14). Allstate now attests, through its counsel, that its CCPR program

relating to “casualty” insurance and to “property” insurance are actually two separate programs

with separate manuals. (See Woelfel Decl., ¶ 3). Further, defense counsel avers that the CCPR

“casualty” insurance program “relates to the valuation of bodily injury claims, and deals mainly

with liability and uninsured motorist claims under automobile policies. . . [and] does not relate

in any way to property insurance claims under homeowners’ policies.” (See id., ¶ 4). Allstate

indicates that its CCPR “property” documents are otherwise being produced to plaintiffs.

The court finds no need for any further briefing on this issue. It now appears that

the November 9, 2006 order in question was based upon a miscommunication or

misunderstanding as to the CCPR documents, and this court clarifies that Allstate’s CCPR

“casualty” documents need not be produced.

2. Allstate also seeks an order that documents produced pursuant to all five of this

court’s November 9, 2006 discovery orders be subject to the terms of the parties’ existing

confidentiality agreement. There is little information before the court as to what that agreement

says; and Allstate asserts only that “[p]rior to Allstate’s production of its ‘Claims Manual:

Policy, Practices, Procedures,’ the parties entered into a confidentiality agreement whereby they

agreed that confidential materials would only be used in connection with this litigation.” 

(Woelfel Decl., ¶ 8). Plaintiffs argue that Allstate did not timely move for a protective order in

connection with the underlying discovery motions and should not be permitted to do so now. 

Indeed, it appears that Allstate made only a passing reference to the claimed confidentiality of

Case 5:05-cv-03178-JF Document 101 Filed 12/07/06 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

3

its documents in its brief and to its desire for a (new or different) confidentiality agreement at

oral argument on the underlying discovery motions. Nevertheless, insofar as Allstate

apparently seeks only an order that any confidential documents that are produced shall be used

only in connection with the instant lawsuit, its motion is granted and the court finds no need for

any further briefing on the issue. However, because there is no issue presently before the court

as to the claimed confidentiality of any particular document(s), the court expresses no opinion

as to whether any document may appropriately be designated as such.

To the extent that Allstate seeks some other or further protection, or if there is a

dispute as to Allstate’s designation of particular documents as confidential, then either party

may seek appropriate relief from the court if meaningful, good faith meet-and-confer

negotiations do not resolve the issue(s). On any such motion, Allstate will bear the burden of

persuasion that the confidentiality designation is warranted. Until the court rules on any such

issue, the parties shall continue to treat the material in question as confidential.

Allstate’s compliance with this court’s discovery orders is overdue and, while

the court understands its concerns over possible compromise of information (if any)

legitimately entitled to protection, a prudent litigant would have timely raised the issue in

conjunction with its opposition to the underlying discovery motions. The court does not at

present know if the delay in production has prejudiced the plaintiff. In any event, production

should occur forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

December 7, 2006

Case 5:05-cv-03178-JF Document 101 Filed 12/07/06 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

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 101 Filed 12/07/06 Page 4 of 4