Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01207/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-01207-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAYER HOFFMAN MCCANN, P.C.,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAMICO MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-01207-SI 

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

Re: Dkt. Nos. 71, 72, 73

The Court has received several letters from the parties regarding a discovery dispute. The 

Court notes that notwithstanding the Clerk’s September 21, 2016 reminder to counsel of the 

Court’s standing order regarding discovery disputes, the parties proceeded to file separate letters, 

each accusing the other side of a failure to cooperate regarding the filing of a joint statement. The 

parties are instructed that they must comply with the standing order with regard to any future 

discovery disputes.

CAMICO’s September 23, 2016 letter seeks an order directing MHM to provide 

supplemental discovery responses and to produce responsive documents. The parties’ letters refer 

to a compromise reached during the meet and confer process by which CAMICO agreed to 

remove MHM’s lawyers from the definition of “YOU” in the document requests, and to limit the 

time period covered to documents concerning the negotiation, placement, binding, and drafting of 

the reinstatement provision contained in the 2007-2008 policy. It is unclear from the parties’ 

separate letters exactly why this compromise agreement fell apart.

In any event, the Court finds that these limitations on CAMICO’s document requests are 

reasonable, and orders MHM to provide responsive documents subject to these limitations no later 

Case 3:15-cv-01207-SI Document 74 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

than October 7, 2016. If, as MHM asserts in its letter brief, CAMICO was nevertheless insisting 

that MHM provide a privilege log (including regarding documents generated after litigation 

ensued, and including between MHM and its counsel, which would be beyond the scope of the 

original request), the Court finds that CAMICO has not shown why, given the Court’s disposition 

of this dispute, such a privilege log is necessary or reasonable. 

MHM’s September 26, 2016 letter asserts that CAMICO has issued deposition notices 

without first conferring with counsel to clear the deposition dates. As the parties filed separate 

letters, it is unclear what CAMICO’s response is with regard to this assertion. Counsel are 

directed to cooperate regarding the scheduling of all future deposition dates.

Finally, CAMICO’s letter states that “MHM’s responses to the special interrogatories are 

evasive and nonresponsive and CAMICO deserves straightforward answers.” Dkt. No. 72 at 2. 

CAMICO does not explain how MHM’s responses are inadequate, and MHM does not respond to 

CAMICO’s assertion. On this record, the Court does not find that this matter has been adequately 

presented to this Court for resolution. If the parties are unable to resolve any disputes regarding 

MHM’s responses to special interrogatories, counsel shall comply with the standing order and file 

a joint letter brief regarding the matter. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-01207-SI Document 74 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 2