Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01312/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01312-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of 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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CYNTHIA MENDEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION and

PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

 /

No. C04-01312 JW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO ENFORCE STEPHEN

PRATER’S COMPLIANCE WITH THIS

COURT’S JULY 8, 2005 DISCOVERY

ORDER

[Re: Docket No. 124]

In this action, plaintiff Cynthia Mendez alleges bad faith breach of an insurance contract. She

has designated Stephen Prater as an expert to testify at trial on claims handling procedures. On July 8,

2005, this court issued an “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to Compel

Stephen Prater’s Production of Documents” (“July 8, 2005 Order”).

Before this court is defendants’ “Motion to Enforce Stephen Prater’s Compliance With

Discovery Order or Alternatively for Sanctions.” They claim that Prater failed to comply with several

aspects of the July 8, 2005 Order and seek to enforce his alleged obligations under the same. 

Alternatively, defendants request sanctions, including among other things, an order (a) striking Prater’s

declarations and supplemental disclosures, (b) precluding him from testifying in this action, or (c)

finding him to be in contempt of court. Plaintiff opposed the motion on Prater’s behalf. Upon

consideration of the papers filed by the parties, as well as the arguments presented at the

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 150 Filed 09/28/05 Page 1 of 7
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

September 27, 2005 hearing, this court issues the following order.

1. The July 8, 2005 Order required Prater to:

(1) conduct a reasonable review of his available records; and (2) serve

a declaration providing his reasoned estimate of the following information

as to his work and income each year for the past five years:

(a) the percentage of his time spent and gross income generated

from providing consulting or expert witness services for the

alleged insureds in claims against insurance companies;

(b) the percentage of his time spent and gross income generated

from providing consulting or expert witness services for insurance

companies defending against claims of their alleged insureds; and

(c) the percentage of his time spent and gross income generated from

providing consulting or expert witness services for the Friedman,

Rubin & White [“FRW”] law firm.

(July 8, 2005 Order, ¶ 9).

On July 18, 2005, Prater executed a declaration which did not specify the percentage of time

spent providing consulting or expert witness services for the FRW firm. However, he says that he

provided the percentage information to defendants in a supplemental declaration executed on August

26, 2005. Defendants argue that Prater’s supplemental declaration is deficient because (a) the

percentage information provided is based upon a mathematical formula which is flawed; and (b) the

supplemental declaration is limited to matters in which Prater was “retained” by the FRW firm, and

does not include all matters where FRW did not retain him, but nonetheless served as co-counsel with

the retaining attorney.

The court agrees that Prater’s mathematical formula is nonsensical. However, it is

unpersuaded that defendants need information as to matters where the FRW firm did not retain – and

presumably did not pay – Prater for his services. Accordingly, defendants’ motion is GRANTED as

follows: Prater’s August 26, 2005 supplemental declaration shall be stricken. No later than

October 4, 2005, Prater shall serve on defendants a supplemental declaration which (a) provides the

percentage of his time spent providing consulting or expert witness services for the FRW law firm (i.e.,

not using his previous mathematical formula) and (b) explains how those figures were calculated. 

Prater shall attest to his estimates directly and not on “information and belief.” Defendants’ motion is

otherwise DENIED.

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 150 Filed 09/28/05 Page 2 of 7
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 The parties indicate that Prater’s deposition is currently scheduled to take place on

September 28, 2005.

3

2. Defendants contend that Prater’s July 18, 2005 financial declaration is deficient

because he fails to explain (a) why he could not separate costs from gross income; (b) what he means

by “other costs”; (c) why his pre-November 2000 records are unavailable; and (d) what the “unable

to determine” category encompasses.

Defendants’ motion is DENIED. In Prater’s deposition,1 defendants may probe the basis for

and meaning of statements Prater made in his declaration. While his declaration appears to raise a

number of questions, defendants have not shown that Prater failed to comply with or otherwise

violated the July 8, 2005 Order.

3. Prater signed his July 18, 2005 and August 26, 2005 financial declarations on

“information and belief.” Defendants argue that Prater should be able to attest to the information about

his own finances based on his personal knowledge, rather than on “information and belief.” This court

agrees. Prater was ordered to provide his “reasoned estimates”; however, he has not demonstrated

why he cannot directly attest that those figures are true and correct estimates. Accordingly,

defendants’ motion is GRANTED as follows: No later than October 4, 2005, Prater shall reexecute his July 18, 2005 declaration under penalty of perjury, and not on “information and belief.” 

As noted above, Prater’s August 26, 2005 supplemental declaration has been stricken, and the parties

shall proceed as set out in Paragraph 1 above with respect to Prater’s new supplemental declaration. 

Defendants’ motion is otherwise DENIED.

4. In his July 18, 2005 and August 26, 2005 financial declarations, Prater asserts his

privacy interests in the information being provided and states that the information is being disclosed

pursuant to court order with the expectation that defense counsel will not disclose the information to

defendants, their in-house counsel, or any other person or party without his permission or a court

order. Defendants move for an order striking all such statements from Prater’s declarations and

precluding Prater from making any such statements at trial.

Defendants’ motion is DENIED. This is not a compliance issue, and defendants have not

shown that Prater has violated or failed to comply with the July 8, 2005 Order. As for the parties’

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 150 Filed 09/28/05 Page 3 of 7
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

dispute over the confidentiality of the information, this court did not preclude defendants from seeing

the subject information, and there is no motion for protective order before the court. In any event, at

the hearing, plaintiff’s counsel stated that there is no concern about defendants themselves having

access to the subject information. Rather, he said that the only concern is that the information not be

disseminated or used beyond this action. This issue is already addressed in the July 8, 2005 Order

which provides that Prater’s financial information “shall not be used or disseminated for any purpose

not directly related to the prosecution or defense of this action.” (July 8, 2005 Order at 7:6-7).

5. In his financial declaration documents, Prater states that defendants should pay for the

time he spent preparing his declarations. Defendants move for an order striking all such statements as

inappropriate. In her opposition papers, plaintiff argued for an order requiring payment from

defendants; however, at the hearing, plaintiff’s counsel stated that they are not requesting any

affirmative relief from this court on this issue. This is not a compliance issue, and defendants have not

demonstrated that there was a violation of the July 8, 2005 Order or that sanctions are warranted. 

Accordingly, their motion is DENIED.

6. Prater was ordered to provide defendants with a log “identifying (1) the documents

that he wants or intends to discuss, ‘refer to, or use as an exhibit, or aid at trial’; and (2) the bases for

their non-production in this action.” (July 8, 2005 Order at 4:18-19). Defendants argue that, contrary

to statements in Prater’s expert report indicating that he relied upon over 100,000 documents in

forming his opinions, Prater’s document log does not identify anywhere near 100,000 documents. 

They move for an order striking from his report all references to 100,000 documents and precluding

Prater from expressing any such statements or sentiments at trial. Additionally, defendants assert that

Prater’s document log failed to identify the basis for the non-production of documents from the

Walker v. Provident Mutual Life Ins., et al. litigation.

Defendants’ motion is DENIED. This is not a compliance issue, and defendants have failed to

demonstrate that sanctions are warranted. Plaintiff’s counsel represents that the alleged deficiency as

to the Walker documents has been corrected through the production of a copy of the protective order

entered in that action. To the extent defendants seek to preclude or limit Prater’s testimony at trial,

such relief is more appropriately sought through a motion in limine.

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 150 Filed 09/28/05 Page 4 of 7
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

7. Prater was ordered to produce (a) “all reasonably identifiable documents (e.g., claims

manuals, statutes, rules, regulations, court opinions, etc.) that he considered in preparing his ‘tutorial

opinion,’ as well as any documents which he intends to rely upon or use at trial” (July 8, 2005 Order

at 8:3-5); and (b) “any documents [he] relied upon or considered in preparing his Norcia report as to

the referenced industry standards.” (Id. at 8:17-19). The intent of that order was to have Prater

reveal to defendants all documents that he considered, relied upon or intends to use at trial.

Defendants argue that Prater has failed to comply with this court’s order because (a) his

supplemental disclosure fails to provide sufficient detail or equivocates as to the documents he relied

upon, considered, or intends to use at trial; and (b) he explained what he meant by the term

“composite knowledge” in his expert report.

In his supplemental disclosure, Prater broadly describes the documents he considered, relied

upon or intends to use at trial. For example, he states that “[a]mong defendants own documents, I

have reviewed, considered and relied on . . .,” “[a]mong the pages that apply . . . .,” and “[o]ther

UnumProvident documents such as its ‘Monthly Results Update’ . . ..” (Burnite Decl., Ex. B). 

Nevertheless, Prater identifies a number of sources which he says he considered, relied upon or

intends to use at trial, and the court is unpersuaded that he has failed to comply with or violated the

July 8, 2005 Order. Accordingly, defendants’ motion is DENIED. However, to the extent Prater

later attempts to use, rely upon or otherwise discuss documents which he has not appropriately

disclosed to defendants in this litigation, defendants may seek an appropriate remedy at trial.

8. The July 8, 2005 Order directed Prater to produce “all identifiable documents that he

considered or relied upon in forming his opinions in this matter, any documents which he intends to rely

upon or use at trial, and any notes re the multistate examination report which he generated in the

course of preparing his report.” (July 8, 2005 Order at 9:1-4). Defendants argue that Prater’s

supplemental disclosure fails to comply with the order because Prater states that the documents he will

be asked about at trial will ultimately be the decision of trial counsel. Plaintiff’s counsel represents that

Prater only meant to indicate that at trial, plaintiff’s counsel might not ask him about all of the

documents he has identified.

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 150 Filed 09/28/05 Page 5 of 7
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

6

This court is unpersuaded that Prater has violated or failed to comply with the July 8, 2005

Order. Accordingly, defendants’ motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 150 Filed 09/28/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

5:04-cv-1312 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Robert Herbert Bohn Snr. jodie@bohnlaw.com, info@bohnlaw.com 

John T. Burnite jtb@kelher.com 

John C. Ferry jferry@kelher.com 

Richard Henry Friedman rfriedman@frwlaw.us, jcrook@frwlaw.us 

Michael G. Glanzberg mgg@kelher.com 

Thomas M. Herlihy herlihy@kelher.com 

Barbara L. Lyons blyons@cpsmlaw.com 

Jeffrey K. Rubin jrubin@frwlaw.us, jcrook@frwlaw.us 

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 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 150 Filed 09/28/05 Page 7 of 7