Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02640/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02640-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgement

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v.

CENTEX HOMES,

Defendant.

No. 2:14-cv-2640 WBS CKD

ORDER

Defendant’s motion to compel production of the claims file and plaintiff’s motion to 

compel depositions of Jane Haninger and Melinda Freese came on regularly for hearing on 

November 18, 2015. Seaton Tsai appeared for plaintiff. Jeffrey Hayes appeared for defendant. 

Upon review of the documents in support and opposition, upon hearing the arguments of counsel, 

and good cause appearing therefor, THE COURT FINDS AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

1. Based on the representation of plaintiff’s counsel that the only responsive documents 

that have been withheld from production of documents have been identified on the supplemental 

privilege log (ECF No. 23-3, Exh. 8), plaintiff shall no later than November 24, 2015 submit for 

in camera review the documents identified in said privilege log. All submitted documents shall 

be Bates-stamped. Plaintiff may, but is not required to, submit an amended supplemental 

privilege log with more detailed descriptions. No later than December 1, 2015, defendant may

Case 2:14-cv-02640-WBS-CKD Document 27 Filed 11/19/15 Page 1 of 2
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

submit a one page letter brief identifying any specific documents identified in any amended 

supplemental privilege log which are no longer subject to the motion to compel. Defendant’s 

motion to compel (ECF No. 16) and defendant’s request for expenses shall thereafter stand 

submitted.

2. In the circumstances of this case and in light of defense counsel’s representations 

regarding the persons to be produced in response to plaintiff’s notice of deposition of person most 

knowledgeable, the court finds that Jane Haninger and Melinda Freese should not be subjected to 

deposition. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 17) is therefore denied. The court finds an 

award of expenses is not warranted considering all of the circumstances reflected in the record 

before it on this motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(5)(A). 

3. Prior to the filing of any further motion to compel, the parties shall engage in the 

informal procedures for the resolution of discovery disputes set forth on the undersigned’s court 

website.

Dated: November 18, 2015

4 stpaul2640.oah

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:14-cv-02640-WBS-CKD Document 27 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 2