Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00826/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00826-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Centex Homes
Defendant
Centex Real Estate Corporation
Defendant
Fidelity and Guaranty Insurance Company
Plaintiff
Travelers Property Casualty Company of America
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FIDELITY AND GUARANTY 

INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CENTEX HOMES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-00826-LJO-GSA

ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO 

COMPEL

(ECF Nos. 56, 57)

On September 11, 2015, Defendants Centex Homes and Centex Real Estate Corporation

(“Defendants” or “Centex”) moved to compel discovery responses from Plaintiffs Fidelity and 

Guaranty Insurance Company and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (“Plaintiffs”

or “Travelers”). (ECF No. 56.) On the same day, Centex also moved to compel depositions of 

several of Plaintiffs’ employees. (ECF No. 57.) 

Defendants’ two Motions to Compel present three issues for the Court to resolve. 

Specifically, Defendants’ motions seek to compel: (1) the production of documents identified in 

Request for Production No. 25 in Plaintiffs’ First Set of Requests for Production1; (2) the 

deposition of Jeffrey Lautrup; and (3) the depositions of Richard Carillo, Rochelle Ware, Vicki 

 

1 Although this request was Request for Production No. 25 in the First Set of Requests for Production to Plaintiffs, 

Travelers appears to have labeled it as Request for Production No. 24 in its responses. 

Case 1:14-cv-00826-DAD-EPG Document 69 Filed 10/02/15 Page 1 of 12
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

Imamura, and a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) witness. The parties have submitted 

joint statements on the issues and the Court has determined that this matter is suitable for decision 

without further oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). Based on a review of the pleadings

and for the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motions to Compel.

I. BACKGROUND

This case is one of many between Travelers and Centex currently pending in front of this 

Court and other courts throughout the state of California. Centex was sued, along with Centex 

subcontractors, for alleged construction defects (the “Almendarez Action” or the “Underlying 

Action”). Travelers had issued insurance policies to West Coast Countertops (the Centex 

subcontractor in this instance) as a named insured and had also insured Centex as an additional 

insured. When the Almendarez Action began, Centex requested coverage from Travelers, which 

assigned Centex’s claim to insurance adjuster Vicki Imamura. Travelers filed suit in this case 

over a dispute that arose between Travelers and Centex regarding their respective duties in 

handling the Almendarez Action. In particular, Centex objects to Travelers’ attempts to appoint 

David Lee of Lee, Hernandez, Landrum, Garofalo & Blake as counsel to Centex in the 

Almendarez Action. 

Centex argues that Lee has previously engaged in unethical conduct and will focus 

Centex’s defense in Almendarez on an outcome that is favorable to Travelers at the expense of 

Centex: Because another Travelers insured, West Coast Countertops, is involved in Almendarez

(and is, in fact, the target of a cross-complaint filed by Centex in that action), Travelers could 

dictate that Lee attempt to shift the blame to solely non-Travelers affiliated targets. Centex acting 

independently (or with independent counsel), on the other hand, could freely argue that West 

Coast Countertops (or other Travelers insured parties), should bear the bulk of the liability in the 

Underlying Action. 

As part of its defense in the present case, Centex served document requests on Travelers 

requesting, among other things:

Any and all DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS that RELATE TO YOUR

coverage decision on West Coast Countertop’s tender to YOU for defense and 

indemnity of the ALMENDAREZ ACTION, including but not limited to YOUR

Case 1:14-cv-00826-DAD-EPG Document 69 Filed 10/02/15 Page 2 of 12
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

claim file and claim notes.

(Declaration of Jeffrey M. Hayes In Support of Joint Statement Re: Discovery Disagreement Re: 

Named Insured Discovery (“Hayes Decl.”) Exh. B, pg. 25, ECF No. 66-2.)2

On March 16, 2015, Travelers responded with a list of boilerplate objections, stating that:

The foregoing General Objections are incorporated herein by reference. This 

Request is also objected to on the grounds that the request is vague and 

ambiguous. Responding Party further objects to the Request on the basis that it is 

vague, ambiguous, overbroad and unduly burdensome to Responding Party, as 

Responding Party utilizes hundreds of different applications in order to view, 

store or recover DOCUMENTS and COMMUNICATIONS. Responding Party 

objects to this request to the extent such documents are already in the possession, 

custody or control of Propounding Party and/or are equally available to the 

Propounding Party. Responding Party objects to this Request to the extent it seeks 

documents neither relevant to the subject matter nor reasonably calculated to lead 

to the discovery of admissible evidence. Responding Party objects to this Request 

to the extent that it seeks information which is protected from disclosure by the 

trade secret, proprietary, litigation, mediation and/or other applicable privileges, 

or that are immune from disclosure. Moreover, Responding Party objects to this 

Request to the extent it seeks documents protected by the attorney client privilege 

and/or the attorney work product doctrine. Finally, this request calls for a legal 

conclusion and the premature disclosure of expert opinion information.

Id. Travelers did not, however, enclose a privilege log with the response (and only did so much 

later, in September 2015).

On August 27, 2015, Centex also served a deposition notice on Jeffrey Lautrup, the 

insurance adjuster apparently responsible for Travelers’ coverage of West Coast Countertops. Id.

at Exh. C, pg. 2. In a form objection notice, Travelers explained that Lautrup would not be 

produced. Id. at Exh. D, pg. 3. 

On August 26, 2015, Centex served deposition notices for Vicki Imamura, Richard 

Carrillo, Rochelle Ware, and a witness to be designated under Rule 30(b)(6). At an informal 

discovery conference with the Court on September 3, 2015, Travelers agreed to provide potential 

deposition dates for the witnesses by September 7, 2015. On September 4, 2015, Travelers served 

objections to the depositions and informed Centex that they would provide dates of availability 

for each of the witnesses “as soon as possible.” (Declaration of Jeffrey Hayes in Support of Joint 

Statement Re: Discovery Disagreement Re: Depositions (“Hayes Decl. #2”), Exh. F, ECF No. 67-

 

2

Page numbers are identified by the CM/ECF generated page number in the upper right hand corner of each page.

Case 1:14-cv-00826-DAD-EPG Document 69 Filed 10/02/15 Page 3 of 12
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

1.) 

On September 9, 2015, Centex contacted Travelers to remind them that they still had not 

provided deposition dates. Id. at Exh. G. Centex again emailed on September 10 and informed 

Travelers that, if they were required to move to compel the depositions, they would seek 

sanctions. Id. at Exh. H. Travelers contacted Centex by phone and indicated that they would be 

drafting a stipulation to seek a 30 day extension to non-expert discovery. Id. Travelers then 

unilaterally decided that they needed a 60 day extension and drafted the stipulation accordingly. 

Id. In the email to Centex attaching the draft stipulation, Travelers indicated that “if the Court 

enters the order the depositions for Travelers employees may take place after October 16, 2015 

through the new discovery deadlines. Should the court not grant the extension, we will continue 

to seek available dates prior to the set discovery cutoff.” Id. Centex replied that although the 

depositions could be taken through the month of November, they would need to be set by the end 

of September. As of September 25, 2015, Travelers had not supplied any potential dates for the 

depositions.

Travelers now asserts in response to the first Motion to Compel that it should not be 

required to produce the claim file and claim notes for West Coast Countertops for review or 

produce Lautrup for deposition because: (1) communications between Travelers and West Coast 

Countertops are not relevant to the current action; and (2) communications between Travelers and 

West Coast Countertops are covered by the attorney-client privilege. In response to the second 

Motion to Compel, Travelers argues that the Motion is not yet ripe because Centex has agreed 

that the depositions need not be taken until November. 

II. REQUESTS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE

Both Travelers and Centex request that the Court take judicial notice of a number of 

orders that have been issued in other cases between the parties. Neither request is opposed.

Centex requests that the Court take judicial notice of: (1) Order re: Joint Ex Parte 

Application re: Outstanding Discovery Disputes, dated April 21, 2015, in the case of Travelers 

Indemnity Company of Connecticut, et al. v. Centex Homes, et al., C.D. Cal. Case No. EDCV 14-

965 FMO (PJWx); (2) Orders re: Centex Motions to Compel in St. Paul Fire and Marine 

Case 1:14-cv-00826-DAD-EPG Document 69 Filed 10/02/15 Page 4 of 12
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

Insurance Company, et al. v. Centex Homes, et al., C.D. Cal. Case No. EDCV 14-1216 AB (JCx); 

(3) Order Granting Motion to Compel in Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Centex 

Homes, et al., C.D. Cal. Case No. EDCV 14-2590 JAK (JCGx); (4) Transcript of Motion to 

Compel hearing in Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Centex Homes, et al., C.D. 

Cal. Case No. EDCV 14-2590 JAK (JCGx); (5) Order re: Travelers’ Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment in Fidelity and Guarantee Insurance Company et al. v. KB Home Coastal, Inc., et al., 

C.D. Cal. Case No. LACV 13-00946 JAK (DTBx). 

Travelers requests judicial notice of: (1) Order Granting in Part and Denying in Party 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment in Travelers Property Casualty Company of America 

v. Centex Homes, N.D. Cal. Case No. C 10-02757 CRB; (2) Order Granting in Part and Denying 

in Part Cross-Motions for Partial Summary Judgment in Travelers Property Casualty Company of 

America, et al. v. Centex Homes, N.D. Cal. Case No. 11-3638-SC; (3) Order on Submitted 

Matters in Nello Mazzoni, et al. v. Centex Homes, Superior Court of California, County of Placer, 

Case No. SCV 031148; (4) Order Denying Centex’s Motion for Summary Adjudication in 

Deusenberry v. Centex, Riverside County Superior Court Case No. RIC 1105565; (5) Order –

Motion for Summary Adjudication Granted in Afsari v. Centex Homes, Alameda County Superior 

Court Case No. RG11593529; (6) Minute Order in Humphreys v. Centex, San Bernardino County 

Superior Court Case No. CIVDS 1302259; (7) Law and Motion Minute Order in Centex Homes v. 

Windows by Advanced, Fresno County Superior Court Case No. 13CECG02959; (8) Law and 

Motion Minute Order in Javier Castro v. Centex Homes, Fresno County Superior Court, Case No. 

11CECG03485 JH; (9) Order re Travelers’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in Fidelity and 

Guaranty Insurance Company v. KB Home Coastal, Inc., et al. C.D. Cal. Case No. CV13-00946 

JAK (DTBx); (10) “Notice of Ruling on Cross-Defendants’ Demurrer” in Travelers Property 

Casualty Company of America v. Centex Homes, San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No.

CIVDS 1315282; (11) “Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; 

Denying Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment” in Travelers Property Casualty 

Company of America v. Kaufman & Broad Monterey Bay, Inc., N.D. Cal. Case No. 5:13-cv04745-EJD; (12) “Minute Order” in Centex v. Ad Land, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-

Case 1:14-cv-00826-DAD-EPG Document 69 Filed 10/02/15 Page 5 of 12
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

2011-00112151, filed April 1, 2015; (13) “Statement of Decision” filed on April 24, 2015 in 

Centex Homes v. Alan Crane, dba A.L. Drywall (and consolidated matters), Tulare County 

Superior Court, Case No. VCU252502; and (14) Centex Homes v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. 

Co., 237 Cal.App.4th 23 (2015) affirming the “Minute Order: Ruling on Demurrer” filed on 

November 5, 2013 in Centex Homes v. Accelerated Waterproofing, Inc., Superior Court of 

California, County of Riverside, Case No. RIC 1306704.

While the court may take judicial notice of the fact of filing or existence and the general 

meaning of words, phrases, and legal expressions, documents are judicially noticeable only for 

the purpose of determining what statements have been made, not to prove the truth of the 

contents. Cactus Corner LLC v. U.S. Dept. of Agric., 346 F.Supp.2d 1075, 1100 (E.D. Cal. 2004), 

citing Hennessy v. Penril Datacomm Networks, Inc. 69 F.3d 1344, 1354–55 (7th Cir.1995).

“Judicial notice is taken of the existence and authenticity of the public and quasi public 

documents listed. To the extent their contents are in dispute, such matters of controversy are not 

appropriate subjects for judicial notice.” Del Puerto Water Dist. v. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,

271 F.Supp.2d 1224, 1234 (E.D.Cal.2003); see also California ex rel. RoNo, LLC v. Altus 

Finance S.A., 344 F.3d 920, 931 (9th Cir.2003) (“requests for judicial notice are GRANTED to 

the extent that they are compatible with Fed. Rule Evid. 201 and do not require the acceptance of 

facts ‘subject to reasonable dispute’”).

The Court grants the requests for judicial notice to the extent they demonstrate that the 

respective orders have been issued in other cases. The documents are not, however, properly 

judicially noticeable for the facts or legal conclusions stated therein. Missud v. Nevada, 861 

F.Supp.2d 1044, 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2012) (“While many of these documents (i.e., filing and order 

in other court proceedings) are judicially noticeable for certain purposes, such as to demonstrate 

the existence of other court proceedings, they are not judicially noticeable for Mr. Missud’s 

purpose, which is to demonstrate that his arguments and allegations against Defendants are true”).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Defendants’ First Motion

As noted above, Centex’s first motion requests that the Court determine whether Travelers 

Case 1:14-cv-00826-DAD-EPG Document 69 Filed 10/02/15 Page 6 of 12
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

must produce documents and testimony regarding Travelers’ handling of West Coast 

Countertop’s claims in the Almendarez Action. Travelers asserts that Centex is merely on an 

“unwarranted fishing expedition” for evidence that is irrelevant to the issues in this action and 

that, in any case, disclosure of the West Coast Countertops file would reveal information about its 

defense strategy in the Almendarez Action that is protected by the attorney-client and attorney 

work product privileges. Although Travelers objected on a number of bases in its initial response 

to Centex, it relies solely on its relevance and privilege objections here. 

Centex argues that the information contained in the file is potentially relevant because the 

documents produced thus far indicate that the insurance adjuster assigned to them, Imamura, had 

discussed the Almendarez Action with Lautrup, the insurance adjuster assigned to West Coast 

Countertops, as well as with other parties affiliated with West Coast Countertops. They assert that 

they are entitled to inquire about these communications because they will demonstrate that a 

conflict of interest existed between Centex and West Coast Countertops, thus requiring the 

appointment of independent counsel. With respect to the attorney-client privilege claim, Centex 

suggests that Travelers has not carried its burden of showing that the privilege applies here 

because it has failed to provide a sufficient privilege log.

1. Relevance.

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may move for an order 

“compelling disclosure or discovery” when a responding party has failed to respond to discovery 

or has provided evasive or incomplete responses. The scope of permissible discovery is 

intentionally broad and can include “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim 

or defense . . . the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved 

in the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevance is construed broadly to include any matter 

that bears on, or reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that may be in 

the case.” Rogers v. Giurbino, 288 F.R.D. 469, 478-479 (S.D. Cal. 2012). 

In this instance, the documents and testimony sought could bear on, or could lead to 

evidence that bears on, Centex’s need for independent counsel. The central thrust of Centex’s 

allegations is that there was a conflict of interest between Centex and West Coast Countertops 

Case 1:14-cv-00826-DAD-EPG Document 69 Filed 10/02/15 Page 7 of 12
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

8

and that Travelers was aware of that conflict. It makes sense, then, that information pertaining to 

Travelers’ coverage of West Coast Countertops is relevant to determine the scope and nature of 

that conflict. That discovery has already uncovered some evidence that Imamura, Travelers’ 

agent, was in communication with West Coast Countertops and Lautrup, the adjuster assigned to 

West Coast Countertops, only reinforces this point. 

2. Attorney-Client Privilege.

In a federal action based on diversity jurisdiction, state law governs claims of privilege. 

Fed. R. Evid. 501; Star Editorial, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 7 F.3d 856, 859 (9th 

Cir. 1993). In California, “[t]he party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the 

preliminary facts necessary to support its exercise, i.e., a communication made in the course of an 

attorney-client relationship.” Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.4th 725, 733 

(2009). Federal law, which governs the application of the attorney product doctrine, also requires 

that “[t]he party who withholds discovery materials must provide sufficient information (i.e., a 

privilege log) to enable the other party to evaluate the applicability of the privilege or protection.” 

Ramirez v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 231 F.R.D. 407, 410 (C.D. Cal. 2005); see also Aecon Bldgs., 

Inc. v. Zurich N. Am., 253 F.R.D. 655, 660 (W.D. Wash. 2008) (“Even if it could withhold 

production of some of the materials under one of the privileges, Zurich was undeniably obligated 

to produce a privilege log documenting its assertion of the privilege”). 

“[B]oilerplate objections or blanket refusals inserted into a response to a Rule 34 request 

for production of documents are insufficient to assert a privilege.” Burlington Northern & Santa 

Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005). When 

evaluating the sufficiency of a party’s privilege claim, a court should consider:

. . . the degree to which the objection or assertion of privilege enables the litigant 

seeking discovery and the court to evaluate whether each of the withheld 

documents is privileged (where providing particulars typically contained in a 

privilege log is presumptively sufficient and boilerplate objections are 

presumptively insufficient); the timeliness of the objection and accompanying 

information about the withheld documents (where service within 30 days, as a 

default guideline, is sufficient); the magnitude of the document production; and 

other particular circumstances of the litigation that make responding to discovery 

unusually easy (such as, here, the fact that many of the same documents were the 

subject of discovery in an earlier action) or unusually hard. These factors should 

be applied in the context of a holistic reasonableness analysis, intended to 

Case 1:14-cv-00826-DAD-EPG Document 69 Filed 10/02/15 Page 8 of 12
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

9

forestall needless waste of time and resources, as well as tactical manipulation of 

the rules and the discovery process. They should not be applied as a mechanistic 

determination of whether the information is provided in a particular format.

Id.

In this case, Travelers did not initially include the disputed documents in a privilege log. 

Although they eventually produced a privilege log (more than five months after they served their 

initial objections to the requests), the log contains only a short explanation for the basis of the 

asserted privilege—the entry describes the withheld documents as: “Documents related to the 

tender by West Coast Countertops, Inc. to Travelers Insurance Companies within NI Claim File 

ACQ3102.” (Hayes Decl., Exh. K, ECF No. 66-11.) The entry does not explain how many 

documents or pages are covered by the entry or the dates of the covered documents. Id. Moreover, 

Centex and Travelers have had the same dispute over documents in at least three separate cases 

prior to this one. In each of those cases, Centex’s motions to compel were granted and Travelers 

was required to produce the requested documents.3(Centex’s Request for Judicial Notice, Exhs. 

A, B, C, ECF Nos. 64-1, 64-2, 64-3.) Travelers has not met its burden in asserting a claim of 

privilege and must produce documents responsive to Centex’s document request. 

Travelers must also produce Jeffrey Lautrup for deposition. However, because Centex has 

not yet posed any specific questions to Lautrup, the Court is unable to determine whether 

Travelers’ assertion of privilege properly applies to his testimony. Travelers’ counsel thus 

remains free to make good faith objections to questions posed by Centex at Lautrup’s deposition 

and Centex remains free to challenge any such objections later on.4

B. Defendants’ Second Motion

Centex’s second Motion to Compel requests that Travelers produce employees Vicki 

 

3 While the Court is not bound by the factual or legal findings of the orders in these cases, the fact that Travelers has 

lost these challenges on three prior occasions (and for substantially identical reasons) but continues to oppose them 

suggests some intransigence on Travelers’ part. The order in the first case, which was issued on April 21, 2015, 

compelled disclosure because of Travelers’ failure to produce a privilege log to document its claim of privilege. The 

fact that this order did not cause Travelers to either: (1) reconsider its position in its other, similarly situated cases; or 

(2) produce privilege logs to properly assert its claims in its other, similarly situated cases, suggests that Travelers’ 

claim of privilege is not well-founded. It also suggests that Travelers is not proceeding in the discovery process with 

the intent of preventing the needless waste of time and resources.

4 The parties are reminded, however, that the non-expert discovery cutoff in this case is currently set for December 

21, 2015. Further extensions to discovery are unlikely to be granted absent good cause and the Court will disfavor 

any obstinacy or attempts to manipulate the discovery process for tactical advantage.

Case 1:14-cv-00826-DAD-EPG Document 69 Filed 10/02/15 Page 9 of 12
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

10

Imamura, Richard Carillo, and Rochelle Ware for depositions. Centex also asks that Travelers 

designate and produce a Rule 30(b)(6) witness to testify. Travelers has agreed to produce these 

individuals, but has not provided dates or designated an individual under Rule 30(b)(6) and does 

not explain its failure to do so. 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) “requires a corporation to produce one or more 

officers to testify with respect to matters set out in the deposition notice or subpoena.” Marker v. 

Union Fidelity Life Ins. Co., 125 F.R.D. 121, 126 (M.D.N.C. 1989). After a party has been 

“served with a Rule 30(b)(6) notice, the corporation is compelled to comply, and it may be 

ordered to designate witnesses if it fails to do so.” United States v. Taylor, 166 F.R.D. 356, 361 

(M.D.N.C. 1996). While Travelers suggests that this discovery dispute is not yet ripe because the 

parties are still discussing the scheduling of depositions, the Court sees little reason why 

Travelers has not, at the very least, designated a Rule 30(b)(6) witness at this point. Indeed, 

practicality requires that the witness be designated before he or she can be scheduled. 

Moreover, Travelers appears to be either unwilling or unable to propose dates for the 

employee depositions. Travelers is correct that the agreed to deadline to propose dates 

(September 30, 2015) had not passed by the time the Motion to Compel was filed. This fact, 

however, is of little reassurance to the Court, because Travelers failed to meet the previous 

deadline it set to propose dates (September 7, 2015). The lack of an explanation for these delays 

is also troubling. Although the parties have only been working to resolve these issues since late 

August, the Court finds it appropriate to grant Centex’s Motion to Compel Depositions and 

require Travelers to produce the requested witnesses for deposition.

Finally, Centex requests $5,400 in discovery sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 37(d) against Travelers based on their failure to provide any potential deposition dates. 

Rule 37(d) allows courts to impose sanctions where “a party or a party’s officer, director, or 

managing agent—or a person designated under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4)—fails, after being 

served with proper notice, to appear for that person’s deposition.” 

Although Travelers’s discovery conduct to this point has been less than exemplary, the 

record does make clear that Centex was willing to entertain deposition dates that occurred after 

Case 1:14-cv-00826-DAD-EPG Document 69 Filed 10/02/15 Page 10 of 12
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

11

the properly noticed dates for the depositions. Centex also agreed to stipulate to an extension to 

the non-discovery cutoff date so that the depositions could occur into November 2015. The Court 

is thus unable to find that Travelers’ witnesses failed to appear for their properly noticed 

depositions as described in Rule 37(d). Sanctions are thus not appropriate in this instance.

Travelers is advised, however, that the Court looks with great disfavor on dilatory conduct 

in discovery or tactical delays aimed at the manipulation of the discovery system. The utter 

absence of any explanation by Travelers for its failure to propose deposition dates suggests to the 

Court that Travelers’ resistance on this issue is not substantially justified. Travelers’ objections to 

Centex’s first Motion to Compel, even in the face of three unfavorable orders in identical 

situations, suggests similarly. Travelers is reminded that the Court has great discretion in 

imposing sanctions under Rule 37. Lee v. Walters, 172 F.R.D. 421, 426 (D. Or. 1997) (awarding 

sanctions in the amount of $7,026 where counsel “did not respond to repeated inquiries and 

demands by plaintiffs to schedule depositions”). The Court hopes that Travelers’ conduct thus far 

has been inadvertent and that it will work to complete the rest of the discovery process smoothly, 

efficiently, and without delay.

IV. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Motions to Compel against Plaintiffs Fidelity and 

Guaranty Insurance Company and Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (ECF Nos. 

56, 57) are GRANTED. Accordingly:

1. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to produce documents requested by Request for 

Production No. 25 in the First Set of Requests for Production propounded on 

Plaintiffs, which is labeled “Request for Production No. 24” in Plaintiffs’ 

Response to Defendants’ First Set of Requests for Production, to Defendants 

within 10 days after the entry of this Order;

2. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to produce Jeffrey Lautrup for deposition by Defendants 

on a mutually agreeable date no later than November 30, 2015. Plaintiffs shall 

provide Defendants with a list of available dates for the deposition within 7 days

after the entry of this Order;

Case 1:14-cv-00826-DAD-EPG Document 69 Filed 10/02/15 Page 11 of 12
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

12

3. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to produce employees Rochelle Ware and Richard 

Carillo for deposition by Defendants on mutually agreeable dates no later than 

November 30, 2015. Plaintiffs are further DIRECTED to produce employee Vicki 

Imamura at a mutually agreeable date consistent with any medical exigencies. 

Plaintiffs shall provide Defendants with a list of available dates for the depositions 

of Vicki Imamura, Rochelle Ware, and Richard Carillo within 7 days after the 

entry of this Order;

4. Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to appropriately designate a witness under Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) in response to Defendants’ Notice of Deposition of 

Travelers’ Rule 30(b)(6) witness and provide a list of available dates for that 

witness’s deposition within 7 days after the entry of this Order. Any such 

deposition shall occur no later than November 30, 2015;

5. Defendants’ request for discovery sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

37(d) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 2, 2015 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00826-DAD-EPG Document 69 Filed 10/02/15 Page 12 of 12