ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (CV 09-2613 

MMC (EDL))

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 

ARTURO CHING, an individual on behalf 

of himself and all others similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE 

INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 

through 10 inclusive, 

 Defendants. 

CASE NO. CV 09-2613 MMC (EDL) 

DISCOVERY MATTER

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION 

OF DOCUMENTS 

Hearing

Date: January 26, 2010 

Time: 2:00 p.m. 

Courtroom: E, 15th Floor 

Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte 

 The court has read and considered all the briefing filed with respect to Plaintiff’s Motion 

to Compel Production of Documents, as well as the arguments of counsel. Good cause being 

shown, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents is granted in part, and 

denied in part, to the extent set forth in this Order. 

2. Defendant shall supplement its response to state that it will produce documents 

responsive to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents No. 1 that relate to the language, 

“When Someone May Be Legally Liable For The Bodily Injury. If the person to or for whom 

we make payment recovers proceeds from any party liable for the bodily injury,” as contained in 

Case 3:09-cv-02613-MMC Document 31 Filed 02/01/10 Page 1 of 4
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (CV 09-2613 

MMC (EDL)) 

- 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 

the reimbursement provision of “Section II – Medical Payments – Coverage C” of Defendant’s 

California Car Policy, if any such documents exist, but this production shall be limited to 

California documents from January 26, 2005 to the present. 

3. Defendant shall supplement its response to state that it will produce documents in 

the public record responsive to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents No. 2 that relate 

to a dispute regarding the language “When Someone May Be Legally Liable For The Bodily 

Injury. If the person to or for whom we make payment recovers proceeds from any party liable 

for the bodily injury,” as contained in the reimbursement provision of “Section II – Medical 

Payments – Coverage C” of Defendant’s California Car Policy, if any such documents exist, but 

this production shall be limited to documents filed in California from January 26, 2005 to the 

present. 

4. Defendant shall supplement its response to state that it will produce additional 

documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of Documents No. 4, if any such 

documents exist, but this production shall be limited to California documents from January 26, 

2005 to the present. 

5. Defendant shall supplement its response to state that, after the entry of a 

protective order, it will produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of 

Documents No. 6 that relate to the drafting history of the language “When Someone May Be 

Legally Liable For The Bodily Injury. If the person to or for whom we make payment 

recovers proceeds from any party liable for the bodily injury,” as contained in the reimbursement 

provision of “Section II – Medical Payments – Coverage C” of Defendant’s California Car 

Policy, if any such documents exist. 

6. Defendant shall supplement its response to state that, after the entry of a 

protective order, it will produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Request for Production of 

Documents No. 9 that relate to the language “When Someone May Be Legally Liable For The 

Bodily Injury. If the person to or for whom we make payment recovers proceeds from any 

party liable for the bodily injury,” as contained in the reimbursement provision of “Section II – 

Medical Payments – Coverage C” of Defendant’s California Car Policy, if any such documents 

Case 3:09-cv-02613-MMC Document 31 Filed 02/01/10 Page 2 of 4
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (CV 09-2613 

MMC (EDL)) 

- 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 

exist, but this production shall be limited to California documents from January 26, 2005 to the 

present. 

7. Defendant shall supplement its response to state that, after the entry of a 

protective order, defendant will produce documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Request for 

Production of Documents No. 10 that relate to the language “When Someone May Be Legally 

Liable For The Bodily Injury. If the person to or for whom we make payment recovers 

proceeds from any party liable for the bodily injury,” as contained in the reimbursement 

provision of “Section II – Medical Payments – Coverage C” of Defendant’s California Car 

Policy, to the extent any such documents exist, but this production shall be limited to California 

documents from January 26, 2005 to the present. 

8. Plaintiff’s request to compel further responses and the production of documents 

responsive to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 11, 12, and 13 is denied. 

9. To the extent Defendant claims that it has no documents responsive to a particular 

request, as limited by the Court, it shall state that in its supplemental responses. 

10. Defendant shall respond to Plaintiff’s Requests of Production of Documents no 

later than fourteen days from the date of entry of this Order and produce any responsive 

documents other than those responsive to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production Nos. 6, 9, and 10, 

which, if any exist, will be produced after the entry of a protective order. 

11. If a protective order has not been entered by the Court by the date Defendant is to 

respond to Plaintiff’s Requests for Production of Documents, Defendant shall prepare and serve 

a “privilege log” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)) setting forth the privilege relied upon and specifying 

separately for each document or for each category of similarly situated documents: 

a. The name and job title or capacity of the author; 

b. The name and job title or capacity of each recipient; 

c. The date the document was prepared and, if different, the date(s) on which it 

was sent to or shared with persons other than its author(s); 

d. The title and description of the document; 

e. The subject matter addressed in the document; 

Case 3:09-cv-02613-MMC Document 31 Filed 02/01/10 Page 3 of 4
ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (CV 09-2613 

MMC (EDL)) 

- 4 -

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 

f. The purpose(s) for which it was prepared or communicated; and 

g. The specific basis for the claim that it is privileged. 

The privilege log shall be served on the same day as Defendant’s responses. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: ______February 1, 2010____, 2010 By: 

 Hon. Elizabeth D. Laporte 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:09-cv-02613-MMC Document 31 Filed 02/01/10 Page 4 of 4