Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01184/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01184-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Daniel Perez and Elizabeth Perez, on

behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

First American Title Insurance

Company, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1184-PHX-DGC

ORDER

The Court’s Second Case Management Order, entered on September 29, 2009,

established a discovery deadline of June 4, 2010. Doc. 108. On May 28, 2010, the Court

held a conference call with the parties at Plaintiffs’ request. During the call, Plaintiffs made

an oral motion to compel production of documents and electronic information. Doc. 217.

The Court directed the parties to file memoranda on the issues raised in the motion, fully

intending to rule promptly. The parties completed the briefing as directed, Docs. 218, 224,

227, but the Court unfortunately lost track of the issue and did not rule promptly. When the

Court discovered its error, it set a status conference for August 17, 2010. Doc. 234. The

status conference was held, and the Court will now rule consistent with the directions

provided during the status conference. Doc. 236. Plaintiff’s motion to compel will be

granted in part and denied in part.

Plaintiffs seek three categories of discovery: (1) the closing files for potential class

Case 2:08-cv-01184-DGC Document 237 Filed 08/27/10 Page 1 of 6
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 -

members in Defendant’s possession, (2) the same type of documents in the possession of

Defendant’s agents, and (3) data maintained in Defendant’s FAST, STARS, and WinTrack

databases in a format that permits Plaintiffs to examine the structure of each database and the

relationships between different data fields and entries. Doc. 218 at 2-3. Defendant objects

to the requests for closing files on the grounds that they are untimely, unduly burdensome,

and prejudicial in that they would require a significant modification to the case management

schedule. Doc. 224 at 1-2. Defendant argues that the request for electronic data is

impermissibly vague and may prove to be unduly burdensome and costly. Id.

I. The Closing Files in Defendant’s Possession.

Plaintiffs assert that they timely requested production of closing files in Defendant’s

possession three times: in their third set of pre-certification document requests dated

March 24, 2009 (Doc. 218-6), in their first set of post-certification document requests dated

October 19, 2009 (Doc. 218-3), and in their second set of post-certification document

requests dated April 20, 2010 (Doc. 218-1). Doc. 218 at 3- 6. Defendant argues that the first

time Plaintiffs specifically requested “closing files” was in a meet-and-confer email sent

May 13, 2010 (Doc. 221-1 at 3-4), more than three weeks after the deadline for serving

written discovery had expired. Doc. 224 at 2-4. The Court agrees.

 The document request dated March 24, 2009 does not seek closing files, but instead

requests “policies and procedures” governing what documents must be maintained in closing

files. Doc. 218-6 at 7, ¶ 34.

The document request dated October 19, 2009 seeks documents “identified, referred

to or described” in Defendant’s response to Plaintiffs’ first set of post-certification

interrogatories. Doc. 218-3 at 6, ¶ 1. Interrogatory 7 requests borrower-specific information

for certain title insurance policies issued by Defendant. Doc. 226-5 at 11. Plaintiffs assert

that in response to interrogatory 7, Defendant refers to and describes documents that

constitute “closing files,” that is, “physical inventory of ‘jackets,’” “policy forms,” and

certain files that would require “manual file review” in order to identify the loan policies

issued in Maricopa County. Doc. 218 at 4-5. Defendant notes that it objected to

Case 2:08-cv-01184-DGC Document 237 Filed 08/27/10 Page 2 of 6
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 -

interrogatory 7 as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and irrelevant (Doc. 226-5 at 11), that it

identified general categories documents without relying on any specific documents or files,

and that it referenced a manual file review only to illustrate the burdensome nature of the

interrogatory. Doc. 224 at 4; see Doc. 226-5 at 11-13. The Court concludes that the

document request dated October 19, 2009 (Doc. 218-3 at 6, ¶ 1) cannot reasonably be

construed as a request for closing files.

The document request dated April 20, 2010 seeks documents “sufficient to identify

the name and address” of potential class members. Doc. 218-1 at 4, ¶ 1. Plaintiffs do not

explain, and it is not otherwise clear to the Court, how this constitutes a request for entire

closing files.

Plaintiffs knew how to request closing files prior to the deadline for serving written

discovery. As Plaintiffs themselves recognize (Doc. 218 at 6), the subpoenas served on

Defendant’s agents in early November 2009 contain detailed requests for relevant closing

files (see, e.g., Doc. 218-8 at 7-8). Given those specific and detailed requests, the Court

cannot construe the document requests served on Defendant (Docs. 218-1, -3, -6) as seeking

production of closing files. The Court accordingly finds that Plaintiffs have not timely

requested production of closing files in the possession of Defendant.

II. The Closing Files in the Possession of Defendant’s Agents.

 With respect to the closing files sought from Defendant’s agents, Plaintiffs bring their

motion to compel only against those agents who are represented by counsel for Defendant:

All American Title Agency, LLC, Alliance Title Partners, LLC, First Valley Title, Hamilton

Title Agency, LLC, Russ Lyon Title, LLC, Title Partners of Tucson, LLC, and

Transcontinental Title Company. Doc. 218 at 2 n.1. Defendant does not dispute that

Plaintiffs timely requested closing files from those agents in subpoenas served in November

2009. Defendant notes that the agents timely objected to producing entire closing files in

mid-December 2009, that those objections are sound under Rule 45, and that Plaintiffs have

taken no steps to avoid imposing undue burden and expense in light of the objections.

Doc. 224 at 5-6. Defendant contends that Plaintiffs’ last-minute demand for the production

Case 2:08-cv-01184-DGC Document 237 Filed 08/27/10 Page 3 of 6
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 -

of entire closing files by the non-party agents is untimely. Id. at 6.

The agents represented by counsel for Defendant objected to the requests for closing

files on the grounds that they are overbroad as to temporal scope, they are unduly

burdensome because they call for file-by-file reviews, and production of entire closing files

would result in the disclosure of confidential and private customer information. See, e.g.,

Doc. 218-10 at 5. As the parties moving to compel production over timely objections,

Plaintiffs have the burden of showing the appropriateness of the subpoenas served on the

non-party agents. See Wi-Lan Inc. v. Research in Motion Corp., No. 10cv859-W (CAB),

2010 WL 2998850, at *3 (S.D. Cal. July 28, 2010). Plaintiffs complain that the agents have

asserted “boilerplate” objections (Doc. 218 at 7), but do not explain why the objections are

unfounded or otherwise improper. Thus, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of showing that

the agents should be compelled to produce entire closing files. 

The Court also concludes that Plaintiffs waited too long before seeking to compel

production of these documents. Objections to the subpoenas were served in December of

2009. Plaintiffs did not seek to compel production until May 28, 2010, only five business

days before the close of fact discovery. This left too little time for the objecting entities to

respond to the substantial production request before the close of discovery. Because

Plaintiffs clearly could have sought to compel production months earlier, the Court concludes

that Plaintiffs could not have shown good cause to extend the discovery period to permit

production. See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreation, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992)

(Rule 16’s good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the

amendment. The district court may modify the pretrial schedule only if it cannot be met

through reasonable diligence.). 

III. Data Contained in Defendant’s Computer Systems.

The parties agree that Plaintiffs timely requested data contained in Defendant’s FAST,

STARS, and WinTrack computer systems (see Docs. 218-1, -3, -6), and that Defendant has

produced a substantial amount of data to Plaintiffs (Docs. 218 at 7, 224 at 7-8). Plaintiffs

claim that Defendant has limited the data to fields that it has determined to be relevant and

Case 2:08-cv-01184-DGC Document 237 Filed 08/27/10 Page 4 of 6
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 -

has denied Plaintiffs access to the systems to determine whether other data fields will assist

in identifying potential class members. Doc. 218 at 7. Defendant asserts that it has produced

descriptions of fields in the form of data dictionaries, record layouts, and through deposition

testimony. Doc. 224 at 8. Defendant further asserts that it would take months to create new

electronic databases for production, and costs could exceed $2 million. Id. at 9. Plaintiffs

counter that they have not asked Defendant to create entirely new databases, but merely seek

the ability to determine for themselves what data may be relevant to the identification of class

members. Doc. 227 at 3. 

The parties agree that to the extent the names and addresses of absent class members

can be determined, direct mail notice should be provided. Docs. 218 at 8, 235 at 2. Indeed,

Defendant has moved for decertification on the ground that Plaintiffs are not able to provide

timely and sufficient notice to class members. Doc. 235. Plaintiffs assert that access to the

computer systems will enable them to identify potential class members and thereafter provide

adequate notice. Doc. 218 at 8-9. 

The Court finds, on the present record, that decertification is too harsh a result for any

dilatory or inadequate discovery practices on the part of Plaintiffs. The Court will allow

Plaintiffs a limited, but reasonable, opportunity to discover the identities of potential class

members through the data bases. 

Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs reasonable access to the FAST, STARS, and

WinTrack computer systems at one of Defendant’s offices. Defendant may supervise, but

not interfere with, Plaintiffs’ use of those systems. Plaintiffs’ access to the computer systems

is limited by the class definition (Doc. 222 at 6) and is conditioned on adherence to the

parties’ protective agreement and “claw-back” provision. Each side shall bear their own

review and copying costs.

IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Docs. 217, 218) is granted in part and denied

in part.

2. The parties shall comply fully with the requirements set forth above by

Case 2:08-cv-01184-DGC Document 237 Filed 08/27/10 Page 5 of 6
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

- 6 -

September 28, 2010.

3. Defendant’s motion for decertification (Doc. 235) is denied without prejudice.

4. A conference call to address modifications to the second case management

order (Doc. 108) is set for October 5, 2010, at 3:00 p.m.

DATED this 27th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01184-DGC Document 237 Filed 08/27/10 Page 6 of 6