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 ORDER - 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

MARGO J. LLOYD, individually,

Plaintiff,

v.

VALLEY FORGE LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY, a foreign insurance company

doing business in Washington,

Defendant.

Case No. C06-5325 FDB

ORDER ON MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion for a protective order prohibiting

the deposition of Jim McDonald, Claims oversight Director. Plaintiff requests expedited review of

the motion. After reviewing all materials submitted by the parties and relied upon for authority, the

Court is fully informed and hereby denies the motion for protective order.

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This is an action for declaratory judgment wherein the Plaintiff, Margo Lloyd, seeks a

judgment holding she is entitled to the benefits of her late-husband’s life insurance policy. The

defendant insurer, Valley Forge Life Insurance Company, denied the request for benefits based on

the suicide provision of the policy. The dispute is over whether or not the suicide provision applies

to Plaintiff’s claim under her late-husband’s life insurance policy. This Court denied Plaintiff’s

motion to amend her complaint to add causes of action for breach of contract, bad faith, violation of

Case 3:06-cv-05325-FDB Document 46 Filed 04/16/07 Page 1 of 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 ORDER - 2

Washington’s Fair Claims Practices regulations, and violation of Washington’s Consumer Protection

Act. Valley Forge now seeks a protective order barring the deposition of Jim McDonald, the Claims

Oversight Director who handled Plaintiff’s claim for benefits. In addition, Plaintiff seeks protection

from the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.

DEPOSITION TESTIMONY

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(b)(1), information is discoverable if it is

“relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” Relevant information need not be admissible if it is

“reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” In addition, “[f]or good

cause, the court may order discovery of any mater relevant to the subject matter involved in the

action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). While Rule 26 does not define the meaning of “relevant,” the

Federal Rules of Evidence define “relevant evidence” as “evidence having any tendency to make the

existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less

probable that it would be without the evidence.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. This information includes

information that a party may use to support its denial or rebuttal of the claims or defenses of another

party, and should include the identity of any witness or document that the disclosing party may use to

support such denials. See Adv. Comm. Notes to 2000 Amendments to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In

order to reduce the element of surprise and facilitate settlement, courts liberally construe pretrial

discovery. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 34 (1984). 

The Court may limit discovery if the discovery sought “is obtainable from some other source

that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive”. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). The Court

may order that requested discovery not be had, or may be had only in a specified manner, including

limiting the type of discovery allowed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). The party who resists discovery has

the burden to show discovery should not be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining,

and supporting its objections. Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975).

Washington law provides for a presumption against suicide in ordinary life insurance policy

Case 3:06-cv-05325-FDB Document 46 Filed 04/16/07 Page 2 of 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 ORDER - 3

cases. The presumption requires the plaintiff to prove a valid life insurance contract and the death of

the insured. It is then the burden of the insurer to prove suicide by a preponderance of the evidence. 

Gould v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 95 Wn.2d 722, 725 (1981). The insurer has the burden

of proving suicide. The facts on which Valley Forge based its decision that Mr. Lloyd’s death was

the result of suicide are necessarily relevant. Inquires into the investigation of the cause of Mr.

Lloyd’s death are likely to lead to the discovery of evidence concerning the cause of death. 

Accordingly the deposition of Jim McDonald, the Claims Oversight Director who handled Plaintiff’s

claim for benefits, should be allowed. This deposition and the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition should be

confined to the discovery of facts relating to the death of Mr. Lloyd. Thus, topics outside the scope

of the inquiry as to the cause of Mr. Lloyd’s death are beyond the proper scope of this litigation.

CONCLUSION

For the above stated reasons, it is 

HEREBY ORDERED:

(1) Defendant’s motion for protective order [Dkt. #43] is DENIED. The inquiry of

Plaintiff’s depositions shall be confined to the ascertainment of facts that are of

consequence to the determination of the cause of death of Mr. Lloyd.

DATED this 16th day of April, 2007

AFRANKLIN D. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05325-FDB Document 46 Filed 04/16/07 Page 3 of 3