Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02810/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02810-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Amanda K. Horton, et al.,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

USAA Casualty Insurance Company, a

foreign insurer, et al.,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-06-2810-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Third Party Rebecca Olson, on behalf of herself and Roman Olson (collectively

“Objectors”), has filed a motion for leave to serve discovery and for reconsideration of the

Court’s order of June 17, 2009. Dkt. #98. Defendants have responded and Objectors have

replied. Dkt. ##99, 100. The Court will deny the motion.

I. Background.

On June 17, 2009, the Court entered an order granting the parties’ joint motion to

vacate the final settlement approval hearing. Dkt. #97. The order granted the parties leave

to conduct a statistical evaluation of the database that will be used in the final settlement

agreement and to file an amended settlement agreement no later than November 6, 2009. Id.

The Court concluded that the interests of the class and Defendants, as well as the purposes

of Rule 23, would be furthered by allowing the parties additional time to re-fashion the

settlement agreement after obtaining the results of the study. Id. The Court entered the order

over the written and oral objections of Objectors. Id.

Case 2:06-cv-02810-DGC Document 101 Filed 08/03/09 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 -

II. Analysis.

A. Motion for Leave to Serve Discovery.

Objectors seek to serve discovery on the parties to obtain information relating to the

damages suffered by class members in the state of Washington. Dkt. #98 at 1-2. In

particular, Objectors seek to discover the difference between the amount of the claims

submitted to USAA for reimbursement in the state of Washington during the last six years

and the amount that USAA actually paid on those claims. Id. Objectors argue that such

information is necessary to evaluate whether the settlement is “fair and adequate regarding

damages.” Id. at 2.

“Class members who object to a class action settlement do not have an absolute right

to discovery; the Court may, in its discretion, limit the discovery or presentation of evidence

to that which may assist it in determining the fairness and adequacy of the settlement.”

Hemphill v. San Diego Ass’n of Realtors, Inc., 225 F.R.D. 616, 619 (S.D. Cal. 2005). A

district court need only grant an objector’s request for discovery if the objector “can make

a colorable claim that the settlement should not be approved.” International Union v.

General Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615, 635 (6th Cir. 2007) (citing Geier v. Alexander, 801

F.2d 799, 809 (6th Cir. 1986)). At this point in the litigation, Objectors can make no such

colorable claim because neither Objectors nor the Court know what form the settlement

agreement will ultimately take. As Defendants point out, the possibility remains that

Objectors will not object to the amended settlement agreement. Dkt. #99 at 4. Until such

time as the Court-approved statistical study has been completed and an amended settlement

agreement has been filed, Objectors’ request for discovery is premature.

The fact that Objectors believe that Washington law may increase Defendants’

liability to Washington class members, Dkt. #100 at 2-4, is not a reason to grant Objectors’

request. Objectors’ argument amounts to a legal claim, not a factual one, about the fairness

and adequacy of the proposed settlement agreement for Washington class members. If

Objectors have the same objection to the amended settlement agreement, the Court will

consider that objection when deciding whether to approve the settlement agreement.

Case 2:06-cv-02810-DGC Document 101 Filed 08/03/09 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 -

The Court also will not grant Objectors’ request for information pertaining to the

parties’ settlement negotiations. Discovery of such information “is proper only where the

party seeking it lays a foundation by adducing other sources of evidence indicating that the

settlement may be collusive.” Hemphill, 225 F.R.D. at 620 (quoting Lobatz v. U.S. West

Cellular of California, Inc., 222 F.3d 1142, 1148 (9th Cir. 2000)). Objectors present no

evidence of collusion. Plaintiffs in this case are represented by effective class-counsel who

have vigorously litigated this matter from the outset. The Court has not reason to believe that

the settlement is collusive or otherwise improper. 

B. Request for Reconsideration.

Objectors seek reconsideration of the Court’s order of June 17, 2009 (Dkt. #97)

granting the parties leave to conduct a statistical evaluation of the database that may be used

in this settlement. Dkt. #98 at 2-4. Objectors argue that, based on the new information

attached as exhibits to their motion, the Court should instead order that Objectors’ experts

be given access to all data involved in the study and allowed to conduct their own review.

The Court finds no new substantive information in the materials submitted by

Objectors. The information is virtually identical to information Objectors submitted as part

of their response in opposition to the joint motion to vacate the settlement approval hearing.

Dkt. ##91-94. Both sets of materials make essentially the same claims: that Ingenix’s data

and data collection methodologies are seriously flawed in a manner disadvantageous to

consumers, that use of Ingenix data by insurers raises serious conflict-of-interest issues, and

that agreements between Ingenix and insurers have prevented public awareness of these

problems within the insurance industry. These claims are not new. Objectors have provided

no basis for reconsideration of the Court’s previous order.

Case 2:06-cv-02810-DGC Document 101 Filed 08/03/09 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 -

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Objectors’ motion for leave to serve discovery (Dkt. #98) is denied.

2. Objectors’ motion for reconsideration (Dkt. #98) is denied.

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-02810-DGC Document 101 Filed 08/03/09 Page 4 of 4