Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01877/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01877-16/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT WATTS, on behalf of

himself individually and all others No. 2:08-cv-01877 LKK KJN

similarly situated,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY CO., an

Illinois corporation, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Presently before this court is defendants Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate

Indemnity Company and Allstate Property & Casualty Company (collectively “Defendants” or

“Allstate”)’s motion to compel production of seatbelts, seatbelt components and seatbelt parts

from plaintiff Robert Watts (“plaintiff”)’s 2005 Honda Civic, which he contends required

replacement as a result of a March 29, 2006 automobile accident. The parties appeared before

the undersigned for oral argument on July 29, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. Attorney Sonia Martin

appeared on behalf of Allstate. Attorney Wendy York appeared on behalf of plaintiff. After

careful consideration of all of the papers filed in support of and in opposition to this motion, the

authorities cited therein, and following oral argument, this motion will be granted for the reasons

Case 2:08-cv-01877-LKK-KJN Document 144 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 7
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

 Plaintiff’s contention that the court’s January 22, 2009 order precludes the filing of the 1

instant motion is not supported by the record. (Dkt. No. 137 at 5.) First, the court specifically

vacated that January 22 order. Second, the condition of plaintiff’s seatbelts may have some

relevance to plaintiff’s adequacy as a class representative. 

2

stated at the hearing and as set forth below. 

I. BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

Plaintiff Robert Watts allegedly had an automobile insurance policy with one or

more of the defendants. (Dkt. No. 79.) His car was involved in an automobile accident, after

which he requested that Allstate replace the seatbelts and associated mechanisms. (Id.) 

Defendants allegedly refused to pay for these costs or to engage in related accommodating

actions. Plaintiff then filed a putative class action against Allstate. (Id., Dkt. No. 67.) The

operative pleading is plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed April 20, 2009, save for the

sixth cause of action which this court dismissed on July 1, 2009. (Dkt. Nos. 67, 79.) The

putative class action complaint asserts claims for relief for breach of contract, insurance bad

faith, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and/or

misrepresentation and unfair competition. 

Following a status conference on January 22, 2009, the Honorable Lawrence K.

Karlton, Senior Judge for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California, ordered

that all discovery in this action was stayed except that “pertaining to class certification.” (Dkt.

No. 59.) However, in a subsequent order, Judge Karlton vacated the January 22 Scheduling

Order. He further ordered that “the parties SHALL proceed with discovery related to class

certification . . . .” (Dkt. No. 130.) Following the issuance of this order, nine months elapsed 1

with no other activity in this case. Accordingly, Judge Karlton set this matter for a status

conference on July 26, 2010, by order dated June 11, 2010. (Dkt. No. 132.) On June 28, 2010,

Allstate filed the instant motion to compel production. (Dkt. Nos. 133, 134.) 

////

Case 2:08-cv-01877-LKK-KJN Document 144 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 7
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

 Plaintiff appears to have abandoned any objection based on attorney-client or work 2

product privilege because he did not raise these grounds in opposition to defendants’ motion to

compel. 

 Plaintiff’s counsel contends that she did not respond by this date because certain 3

additional correspondence from defendants’ counsel requested a response by July 9, 2010. (Dkt.

No. 137 at 4.) The present record does not support this claim. It is unclear that the referenced

July 9 correspondence addressed the issues involved in the proposed joint statement and the

instant motion to compel. That letter appears to address issues involved in plaintiff’s deposition,

not production of seatbelts. (See Dkt. No. 138 at 33.) It is noted that only one page of that letter

was attached to Ms. York’s declaration, rendering it impossible to determine whether seatbelts

were addressed in the remainder of that letter. Ultimately, the record does not support a

conclusion that plaintiff’s failure to respond by June 25 was justified by Allstate’s additional

correspondence. 

3

B. Discovery Dispute

Defendants served a fourth request for production on August 12, 2009. (Dkt. No.

133 at 1.) That request sought production of:

ALL seatbelts, seatbelt components, AND seatbelt parts that were

in YOUR 2005 Honda Civic on March 29, 2006, which YOU

contend needed to be inspected, repaired OR replaced as a result of

the March 29, 2006 accident. 

(Dkt. No. 133 at 13.) 

On September 10, 2009, plaintiff objected to this request based on relevance,

attorney-client privilege and attorney work product, and refused to produce the seatbelts. (Dkt. 2

No. 133 at 18.) Counsel met and conferred telephonically on September 11, 2009. (Dkt. No. 133

at 8.) The parties were unable to resolve their dispute. On September 22, 2009, Allstate’s

counsel sent plaintiff’s counsel a proposed joint statement regarding this discovery dispute. (Dkt.

No. 133 at 23.) Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond. 

Nine months later, Allstate’s counsel again sent plaintiff’s counsel the proposed

joint statement and requested a response by June 25, 2010. (Dkt. No. 133 at 30-31.) Plaintiff’s

counsel did not respond by that date. Allstate filed this motion on June 28, 2010. (Dkt. No. 3

133.) 

////

Case 2:08-cv-01877-LKK-KJN Document 144 Filed 08/02/10 Page 3 of 7
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

 Counsel present a variety of arguments regarding the procedural sufficiency of efforts 4

to meet and confer and regarding the filing of this motion to compel. The court finds sufficient

compliance with the local rules in this instance, and in the further interest of judicial economy,

will reach the merits of this dispute. 

4

II. MOTION TO COMPEL

A. Legal Standards

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), the scope of federal

discovery is broad. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is

relevant to any party’s claim or defense. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). That relevant information

need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. Id. The broad scope of permissible discovery encompasses

any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matters that could bear on, any

issue that is or may be in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 427 U.S. 340, 351

(1978). Discovery is not limited to the merits of a case, “for a variety of fact-oriented issues may

arise during litigation that are not related to the merits.” Id. A district court has wide latitude in

controlling discovery, and its rulings will not be overturned in the absence of a clear abuse of

discretion.” Volk v. D.A. Davidson & Co., 816 F.2d 1406, 1416-17 (9th Cir. 1987). 

B. Discussion4

Defendants argue that the condition of plaintiff’s seatbelts following the accident

is “critical” to this action, because the policy only obligates Allstate to repair or replace direct

and accidental loss. (Dkt. No. 133 at 2.) Defendants call the court’s attention to numerous

instances in the complaint where plaintiff alleges that the seatbelts in plaintiff’s vehicle were not

in the same condition that they were in prior to the time of the accident. (Id.) In particular,

defendants point to the following portions of the complaint:

42. On March 29, 2006, Plaintiff’s ALLSTATE-insured 2005

Honda Civic was significantly damaged in a high impact,

front end collision. The front driver and passenger seat

belts in Plaintiff’s vehicle locked and took on significant

force . . . . Following the accident, the seat belts in

Case 2:08-cv-01877-LKK-KJN Document 144 Filed 08/02/10 Page 4 of 7
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

 Plaintiff admits as much in his opposition briefing. (Dkt. No. 137 at 11 (. . . “Plaintiff 5

in the present matter has repeatedly asserted that his seatbelts were damaged as a result of the

collision and in need of replacement and was in fact forced to replace the seatbelts himself.”)). 

5

Plaintiff’s vehicle were not in the same physical condition

they were in at the time of the accident/loss and needed to

be replaced to restore Plaintiff’s vehicle to its pre-accident

condition.

48. Plaintiff is informed and believes that his vehicle’s

involvement in the high impact, front end collision that

caused substantial damage to the vehicle and significant

injuries to the passengers wherein the seat belts were worn

and engaged caused significant damage to Plaintiff’s seat

belts and restraint systems. 

49. Plaintiff further alleges that the involvement in the collision

reduced the effectiveness of his seat belts in any subsequent

collision. 

50. Plaintiff further alleges that the seat belts’ webbing was

stretched and elongated; the anchors that secure the seat

belts to the vehicle were damaged; and the retractor locking

mechanisms were damaged due to the collision. 

51. Plaintiff further alleges that had the requested inspection

and replacement been completed, that the above listed

damages would have been discovered and repaired leaving

his vehicle in its pre-loss, pre-accident safe condition.

76. Plaintiff’s ALLSTATE-insured vehicle was in a head on

collision which caused significant damage to the passengers

and the vehicle itself . . . As a result of the impact of the

collision, the webbing of the seat belts was elongated

rendering the seat belt ineffective in any subsequent

collision. 

(Complaint, Dkt. No. 67.) Plaintiff clearly and repeatedly contends that the condition of the

seatbelts following the accident was of factual significance. Defendants seek an opportunity to 5

inspect plaintiff’s seatbelts to determine whether they were damaged during the accident and in

need of repair or replacement. 

Despite the contentions in his complaint, plaintiff argues that the condition of his

seatbelt is irrelevant because Allstate did not base its denial of plaintiff’s insurance claim on the

Case 2:08-cv-01877-LKK-KJN Document 144 Filed 08/02/10 Page 5 of 7
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

6

condition of the seatbelts. (Dkt. No. 137 at 1, 6.) Moreover, plaintiff argues that regardless of

the condition of the seatbelts, the Honda Civic owner’s manual for plaintiff’s vehicle requires

replacement of all seatbelts involved in a collision. (Dkt. No. 137 at 6 “If a seat belt is worn

during a crash, it must be replaced by the dealer. A belt that has been worn during a crash may

not provide the same level of protection in a subsequent crash.”). Finally, plaintiff contends that

defendants waived their right to inspect the condition of the seatbelts by failing to inspect them

following the 2006 collision and/or issuing a blanket denial and should be estopped from doing

so by waiting over three years before seeking inspection. (Dkt. No. 137 at 1.) 

Although plaintiff’s arguments ultimately may have some appeal, the court finds

that the seatbelts and accompanying components are relevant, discoverable evidence, particularly

in this putative class action. Given the broad discovery standards and the breadth of plaintiff’s

allegations in his complaint, defendants are entitled to inspect the tangible things that plaintiff

alleges were damaged in the automobile accident and that Allstate was allegedly obligated to

restore to their pre-accident condition. Plaintiff’s arguments to the contrary are insufficient to

overcome the fact that Rule 26(b)(1) imposes broad standards of discoverability and has been so

construed by the courts. See Oppenheimer, 437 U.S. at 351 (recognizing that discovery is not

necessarily even limited to the merits of a case, and that discovery has often been used to, for

example, illuminate issues upon which a district court must pass in deciding whether a suit

should proceed as a class action). 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to compel (Dkt. Nos. 133, 134) is granted.

2. On or before August 30, 2010, plaintiff shall produce to Allstate for

inspection all seatbelts, seatbelt components and seatbelt parts that were in plaintiff’s 2005

Honda Civic on March 29, 2006.

//// 

Case 2:08-cv-01877-LKK-KJN Document 144 Filed 08/02/10 Page 6 of 7
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

7

3. No destructive testing of any kind shall be performed on the seatbelts

seatbelt components and seatbelt parts unless otherwise agreed by the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 29, 2010

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

 

Case 2:08-cv-01877-LKK-KJN Document 144 Filed 08/02/10 Page 7 of 7