Holland-Hewitt v. Allstate Life Ins. Co.

1

SUSAN L. HOLLAND-HEWITT, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

No. 1:20-cv-00652-ADA-SAB

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 2, 2022

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO PROVIDE FURTHER AND SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSES WITHIN TWENTY-ONE DAYS

(ECF NOS. 46, 52)

I. INTRODUCTION

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendant to provide further responses to Interrogatory Nos 17, 19, 20 and 21, and to provide a supplemental response and production related to Request for Production No. 34. (ECF No. 46.) Having considered the joint statement regarding the discovery dispute, as well as the Court's file, the Court issues the following order granting Plaintiff's motion to compel.

II. BACKGROUND

On May 8, 2020, Susan L. Holland-Hewitt (“Holland-Hewitt” or “Plaintiff”) filed this putative class action against Allstate Life Insurance Company (“Allstate” or “Defendant”). (ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff alleges Defendant wrongfully lapsed or terminated life insurance policies, including hers, without first providing all the consumer protections mandated by California Insurance Code Sections 1113.71 and 10113.72 (the “Statutes”), namely: minimum grace periods, proper notices of lapse, and the right to designate others to receive important duplicative notices and information regarding the insurance policy. (Joint Statement Re Mot. Compel (“JS”) 3, ECF No. 52; Compl., ECF No. 1.)^[1] Plaintiff alleges the termination of her policy, and many others, was and is invalid. Plaintiff brings claims for Declaratory Relief, Breach of Contract, and Unfair Competition under the California Business & Professions Code on behalf of herself and a putative class defined as follows:

All past, present, and future owners or beneficiaries of Defendant's life insurance policies in force on or after January 1, 2013 and governed by Sections 10113.71 and/or 10113.72, where the policies underwent or will undergo lapse, termination, and/or reinstatement without Defendant first providing written notice of and an actual 60-day grace period, a 30-day notice of pending lapse and termination, and/or an annual notice of a right to designate at least one other person to receive notice of lapse or termination of a policy for nonpayment of premium.

(JS 3; Compl. ¶ 41.)

On January 10, 2022, the Court issued a class action scheduling order setting deadline of September 30, 2022, for pre-certification discovery, and a deadline of October 28, 2022, to file a motion for class certification. (ECF No. 40.) On August 1, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel Defendant to provide further responses to Interrogatory Nos. 17, 19, 20 and 21, and to provide a supplemental response and production related to Request for Production No. 34. (ECF No. 46.) The matter was set for hearing on August 24, 2022. (Id.) On August 11, 2022, the Court continued the hearing on the motion until September 7, 2022, pursuant to the parties' stipulation. (ECF Nos. 49, 50.) On August 24, 2022, the parties filed a joint statement regarding the motion to compel. (ECF No. 52.) On September 6, 2022, the Court found this matter suitable for decision without oral argument, and vacated the hearing. (ECF No. 53.) On October 21, 2022, the Court granted an extension of the deadline to file a motion for class certification until November 14, 2022. (ECF No. 56.) On October 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of recent decisions in support of the motion to compel.^[2]

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Rule 26 provides that a party “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). Information need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. Id. “Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.” Fed.R.Evid. 401.

Relevancy is broadly defined to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Although relevance is broadly defined, it does have “ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Gonzales v. Google, Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (quoting Oppenheimer Fund, Inc., 437 U.S. at 351). While discovery should not be unnecessarily restricted, discovery is more limited to protect third parties from harassment, inconvenience, or disclosure of confidential documents. Dart Industries Co., Inc. v. Westwood Chemical Co., Inc., 649 F.2d 646, 649 (9th Cir. 1980). In deciding discovery disputes, courts must be careful not to deprive the party of discovery that is reasonably necessary to their case. Dart Industries, 649 F.2d at 680. Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1), the Court may, for good cause, issue a protective order forbidding or limiting discovery. The avoidance of annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense are grounds for the issuance of a protective order. Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c).

Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a party to serve interrogatories on another party. “Each interrogatory must, to the extent it is not objected to, be answered separately and fully in writing under oath.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(3). “The grounds for objecting to an interrogatory must be stated with specificity,” and “[a]ny ground not stated in a timely objection is waived unless the court, for good cause, excuses the failure. Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(4).

Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, pertaining to document production requests, provides that

A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule 26(b):

(1) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in the responding party's possession, custody, or control:

(A) any designated documents or electronically stored information--including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and other data or data compilations--stored in any medium from which information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the responding party into a reasonably usable form. . . .

Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a). “The party to whom the request is directed must respond in writing within 30 days after being served. . . .” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(B). A party's response “may state an objection to a requested form for producing electronically stored information. If the responding party objects to a requested form--or if no form was specified in the request--the party must state the form or forms it intends to use.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 34(b)(2)(D).

Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(1). “A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection” where “(i) a deponent fails to answer a question asked under Rule 30 or 31; (ii) a corporation or other entity fails to make a designation under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4); (iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33; or (iv) a party fails to produce documents or fails to respond that inspection will be permitted -- or fails to permit inspection -- as requested under Rule 34.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(3)(B). The party opposing the discovery bears the burden of resisting disclosure. Bryant v. Armstrong, 285 F.R.D. 596, 600 (S.D. Cal. 2012).

If a motion to compel discovery is granted, the Court must order the “party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees” unless: “(i) the movant filed the motion before attempting in good faith to obtain the disclosure or discovery without court action; (ii) the opposing party's nondisclosure, response, or objection was substantially justified; or (iii) other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(A). If the motion is denied, the court must “require the movant, the attorney filing the motion, or both to pay the party or deponent who opposed the motion its reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion, including attorney's fees,” however the court “must not order this payment if the motion was substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(B). Where the motion is granted in part and denied in part, the court “may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(a)(5)(C).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. The Discovery Requests

The Court shall first reproduce the discovery requests that are subject to the dispute, as well as related requests and applicable definitions, as set forth in the parties' joint statement. Interrogatory No. 17 requested as follows:

Plaintiff's Interrogatory No. 17: Please identify, by POLICY owner name, address, phone number, email address, POLICY type (i.e. group versus individual), all CLASS MEMBERS, including beneficiaries for POLICIES where the insured has died. This information should be provided in electronic format and specifically, in .CSV, .XLS, or other format fully

...