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NOT FOR CITATION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

INTERROGATORY ANSWERS FROM

ALLSTATE”

[Re: Docket No. 55]

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 under their policy.

On November 7, 2006, this court heard plaintiffs’ “Motion to Compel Interrogatory

Answers from Allstate.” Allstate opposed the motion. Upon consideration of the papers filed

by the parties,1

 as well as the arguments of counsel, the court issues the following order.

*E-FILED ON 11/9/2006*

Case 5:05-cv-03178-JF Document 79 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

1. Preliminarily, Allstate argues that the instant motion should be denied because

plaintiffs unduly delayed in filing it and therefore waived their right to compel the discovery. 

Here, Allstate points out that its interrogatory responses at issue were served on January 9,

2006. Generally, discovery motions should be made within a reasonable time. The instant

motion was not filed until a few days before the October 6, 2006 discovery cutoff. 

Nevertheless, the court’s Civil Local Rules permit parties to file discovery motions up to seven

days after the discovery cutoff. See CIV. L.R. 26-2. As such, this court declines to deny the

instant motion as untimely on a wholesale basis. However, as discussed more fully below,

certain of plaintiffs’ requests will be denied as untimely insofar as the requested discovery

cannot now be reasonably accomplished, and plaintiffs have not explained why they did not

move for relief earlier.

2. With respect to Interrogatory No. 11 (“State if Allstate adjusted Plaintiffs’ claim

in accordance with its policies and procedures”), plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED as MOOT. 

Allstate served its answer to this interrogatory while the instant motion was being briefed.

3. With respect to Interrogatory No. 10, plaintiffs seek “all facts regarding Mr.

Bryan [sic] has ever been disciplined or reprimanded by any one at Allstate.” (See Shepardson

Decl., Ex. 4 at p. 7). Plaintiffs’ motion as to this request is DENIED. At the motion hearing,

plaintiffs indicated that they would be satisfied if they were to obtain Bryan’s performance

reviews. In connection with plaintiffs’ discovery motion on a related document request, this

court has agreed to conduct an in camera review of Bryan’s performance reviews to determine

what information ought to be produced. (See Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Re Second Set of Requests for Documents,” which is being filed

concurrently with the instant order.)

4. Interrogatory No. 22 asks Allstate to “[s]tate all facts regarding the names,

address and phone numbers of other insureds who had claims adjusted by Mr. Bryan from 2002

to the present.” (See Shepardson Decl., Ex.4 at p. 11). Plaintiffs argue that the information is

relevant to their “bad faith” claims, as well as to their request for punitive damages. Allstate

Case 5:05-cv-03178-JF Document 79 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

contends that the information is irrelevant, and that it is, in any event, prohibited from

disclosing the private information of other insureds without their written consent.

Other insureds’ claim files may be relevant to show whether there have been

other instances of misconduct in the past by a particular claims representative and the insurer’s

knowledge of it. See Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct., 31 Cal.3d 785, 790-92,

183 Cal. Rptr. 810, 814 (1982) (“[A] plaintiff may establish a claim by showing either that the

acts that harmed him were knowingly committed or were engaged in with such frequency as to

indicate a general business practice.”). Nevertheless, before any personal information can be

disclosed, California law requires that non-party insureds must first give their consent to

disclosure in writing in response to a letter approved by the court. See CAL. INS. CODE §791.13;

Mead Reinsurance Co. v. Super. Ct. 188 Cal. App.3d 313, 321-22, 232 Cal. Rptr. 752, 756-57

(1986).

At this stage of the litigation, it seems that the requested discovery cannot be

reasonably accomplished – at least not without jeopardizing the January 7, 2007 trial. 

Additionally, Allstate says that it has filed dispositive motions which are set to be heard, and the

court’s docket indicates that those motions are set for hearing on December 8, 2006. Although

the instant motion was timely filed under Civil Local Rule 26-2, it was nonetheless filed very

close to the October 6, 2006 fact discovery cutoff. Indeed, at oral argument, plaintiffs’ counsel

readily acknowledged that seeking this discovery now would not be conducive to a smooth or

efficient trial. (If he did get the names of other insureds and then managed to obtain their

written consent, he would serve subpoenas for the production of their claims files at the start of

trial.) The District Court’s case management deadlines were set in March 2006, and plaintiffs

have been aware of Allstate’s objections to this interrogatory as early as January 2006. There is

no indication that unusual circumstances beyond plaintiffs’ or their counsel’s control prohibited

them from moving to compel this discovery sooner, and plaintiffs’ counsel has no explanation

as to why he waited until now to move for relief. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion as to

Interrogatory No. 22 is DENIED.

Case 5:05-cv-03178-JF Document 79 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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

November 9, 2006

Case 5:05-cv-03178-JF Document 79 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 79 Filed 11/09/06 Page 5 of 5