Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02312/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02312-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nalini Kumar
Plaintiff
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
Defendant
Allen Singh
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NALINI KUMAR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 22-cv-03852-TLT (LJC)

ORDER RE: JOINT DISCOVERY 

LETTER BRIEF

Re: ECF No. 62

This case involves Plaintiffs Nalini Kumar and Allen Singh’s (Kumars) allegations of bad 

faith on the part of Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Nationwide). ECF No. 1 

(Compl.) ¶¶ 88-93. The present discovery dispute concerns Nationwide’s responses to the 

Kumars’ requests for admissions (RFAs). ECF No. 62 at 1.

1

 Relatedly, the Kumars are seeking to 

depose Julian Pardini, a lawyer retained by Nationwide to work on their insurance claim since 

October 2020. Id. at 3. The deposition is currently scheduled for August 10, 2023. Id. In 

advance of the deposition, the Kumars served two RFAs to clarify whether Nationwide intends to 

defend against the insurance bad faith claim by relying on advice of counsel. “The defense of 

advice of counsel generally waives the attorney-client privilege as to communications and 

documents relating to the advice.” State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 228 Cal. 

App. 3d 721, 727 (1991). Nationwide has dodged providing an answer that makes clear whether it 

intends to assert such a defense. 

Consequently, the Kumars are now seeking court intervention and request an order 

compelling a further response to the RFAs. The Kumars’ RFAs are atypical in that requests for 

1 Unless specified otherwise, the Court refers to the PDF page number generated by the Court’s efiling system when the document is electronically filed on the court docket.

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 63 Filed 07/24/23 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

admissions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 36 are generally designed to seek concessions 

that limit factual issues in a case. James v. Maguire Correctional Facility, Case No. C 10-1795 SI, 

2012 WL 3939343, *4 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2023). That is, requests for admission under Rule 36

ordinarily focus on facts that are not in substantial dispute, rather than serving as a discovery 

device. See 8B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2254

(3d. 2023). That said, Rule 36 does allow for requests for admissions related to “the application of 

law to fact” or “opinions.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1)(A). 

Even if this Court were to determine that the Kumars’ RFAs were improper, nothing would 

preclude the Kumars from seeking the same information through a contention interrogatory under 

Rule 33. Rule 33 permits interrogatories that “ask[] for an opinion or contention that relates to 

fact or the application of law to fact . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a)(2). This case has been pending 

since June 2022, and discovery has been open since at least November 2022. ECF Nos. 1, 23. In 

addition, the parties exchanged documents in a prior case (No. 3:21-cv-04479-TSH) which was 

dismissed. ECF No. 22 at 6. Nationwide has had sufficient time to explore the dispute and 

investigate the handling of the Kumars’ claim. Accordingly, it is not premature for Nationwide to 

determine whether it intends to rely on advice of counsel to defend against the Kumars’ claims. If 

the Kumars have already served the maximum number of interrogatories permitted under Rule 

33(a)(1), leave is granted for the Kumars to submit an additional interrogatory seeking discovery 

as to whether Nationwide asserts such a defense.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 63 Filed 07/24/23 Page 2 of 3
3

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The parties are reminded that under Local Rule 37-1(a), the Court “may impose an 

appropriate sanction, which may include an order requiring payment of all reasonable expenses, 

including attorney’s fees, caused by [a party’s] refusal or failure to [meet and] confer.” In 

addition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(B) authorizes the Court to issue an order, for 

good cause, shifting the expense of discovery in order to protect a party from undue burden or 

expense related to the discovery process. The Court will consider cost-shifting when the 

discovery requests or objections abuse the process and cause undue burden or expense. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2023

LISA J. CISNEROS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 63 Filed 07/24/23 Page 3 of 3