Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03178/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-03178-3/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NOT FOR CITATION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 ALLSTATE TO

PRODUCE DOCUMENTS FOR MARIA

CECENA’S DOCUMENT REQUEST NO.

2"

[Re: Docket No. 53]

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 owed under their policy.

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

Documents for Maria Cecena’s Document 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 11/09/2006*

Case 5:05-cv-03178-JF Document 77 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 Plaintiffs reportedly attached to their request an exhibit describing the CCPR

documents. However, that document was not presented to this court on the instant motion.

2

1. With respect to Document Request No. 1, plaintiffs seek “complete copies of the

Claims Core Process Review (‘CCPR’) program in effect from 12/14/03 to 3/1/06.” (See

Shepardson Decl., Ex. 6 at p. 3). According to plaintiffs, the CCPR documents comprise

Allstate’s business plans and strategies for claims handling and are, therefore, relevant to their

claims of bad faith and for punitive damages.2

 Allstate asserts that it has already produced a

copy of its “Claims Manual: Policy, Practices, Procedures” which was in effect during the

period when plaintiffs’ claim was handled (i.e., December 2003 through May 2005). It argues

that plaintiffs have failed to show that they are entitled to any further documents as to Allstate’s

claim adjusting practices, and further objects to the terms “Claims Core Process Review” and

“program” as vague and ambiguous. Indeed, in its opposition papers, Allstate asserted that it

“has no idea what documents it would be searching for.” (Opp. at 11:19). However, at oral

argument, defense counsel acknowledged that Allstate does possess “Claims Core Process

Review” documents for the various types of insurance policies it sells, including a section on

“property and casualty” claims.

This court agrees that the CCPR documents are relevant or reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence inasmuch as they may contain information that

bears upon Allstate’s claims adjusting practices or policies. However, as drafted, Request No. 1

is overbroad. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion as to this request is GRANTED, but only as to the

CCPR documents in effect for the period December 2003 through May 2005 and which pertain

to property and casualty claims. The motion as to this request is otherwise DENIED.

2. In Document Request No. 2, plaintiffs seek “[a]ll documents in effect from

12/14/03 to 3/1/06 referring or relating to claims goals to pay property claims within the lowest

10% of the historical base range of similar claims.” (See Shepardson Decl., Ex. 6 at p. 3). 

Plaintiffs’ counsel stated that this request is based upon (unspecified) materials which

purportedly indicate that Allstate has a goal or objective of adjusting property claims within the

lowest percentile of the payout on similar past claims. Allstate asserted a litany of objections to

Case 5:05-cv-03178-JF Document 77 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

this request, including that it is vague, ambiguous and burdensome. Further, Allstate contends

that it is unable to respond to this request because plaintiffs fail to identify the types of

documents they seek. At the hearing, however, Allstate’s counsel represented to the court that

she has conducted a diligent inquiry of relevant persons at Allstate and is not aware that Allstate

has any such goal or objective.

As drafted, Request No. 2 is vague and ambiguous as to the types of documents

being requested and overbroad as to the relevant time period. Nevertheless, this court

concludes that the request reasonably can be read as seeking national and regional (that is,

Northern California) policies, manuals, rules, guidelines or memoranda in effect between

December 2003 and May 2005 which refer to, relate to, amend, clarify, amplify or interpret any

Allstate policy, practice, goal, or objective of making property claim payments within the

lowest 10% of the payout on similar past property claims. Such information is relevant or

reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence as to plaintiffs’ claim that

Allstate acted in bad faith and underpaid benefits owed under their policy. To the extent

Allstate contends that, after conducting a diligent inquiry and reasonable search, it has no such

goal or objective (or any documents responsive to the request as clarified by this court), it shall

submit by November 20, 2006 affidavit(s) from corporate officer(s) with requisite authority and

knowledge so attesting. Otherwise, Allstate shall produce all non-privileged documents

responsive to this request (as clarified by the court) no later than November 20, 2006.

3. With respect to Request No. 3, plaintiffs seek “[a]ll documents in effect from

12/14/03 and 3/1/06 regarding Allstate’s objective to ‘win every claim.’” (See Shepardson

Decl., Ex. 6 at p. 4). Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts that this request is based upon an adjuster’s

website commentary that allegedly summarizes the Claims Core Process Review and Allstate’s

claims practices. At the motion hearing, plaintiffs indicated that they wish to ascertain whether

or not Allstate has a corporate objective to “win every claim.” Allstate argues that this request

is vague and ambiguous, overbroad and burdensome and says that it does not know what

material the request purports to quote.

Case 5:05-cv-03178-JF Document 77 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

This court agrees that Request No. 3 is overbroad, vague and ambiguous. Its

attempts at the hearing to obtain clarification from plaintiffs met only limited success. 

Nevertheless, Allstate’s counsel represented to the court that she conducted a diligent inquiry of

relevant persons at Allstate and that there is no goal, objective, or policy at Allstate which is

named “win every claim” – either at the national level or in the Northern California region. If

so, then there is nothing that the court would order produced. Accordingly, no later than

November 20, 2006, Allstate shall submit affidavit(s) from appropriate corporate officer(s)

with requisite authority and knowledge so attesting.

4. Document Request No. 4 seeks “[a]ll documents in effect from 12/14/03 to

3/1/06 regarding Allstate’s procedures for reviewing the performance of its property claims

adjusters. (See Exhibit reference to such procedures). The documents need not be filled out, so

privacy rights of particular adjusters is not an issue.” (See Shepardson Decl., Ex. 6 at p. 4). 

Plaintiffs state that they are moving to compel the production of a blank performance review

form for Allstate’s adjusters. Plaintiffs’ motion as to this request is GRANTED insofar as

Allstate agreed, in its June 8, 2006 discovery response, to produce “a blank (specimen) copy of

its performance development summary used during the pendency of plaintiffs’ claim for claim

adjusters in the office that handled that claim.” (Shepardson Decl., Ex. 6 at p. 4-5). Because

Allstate has not yet done so, it shall produce the promised documentation forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

November 9, 2006

Case 5:05-cv-03178-JF Document 77 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 77 Filed 11/09/06 Page 5 of 5