Naff et al v. State Farm General Insurance Company

Filing 20

STIPULATION and ORDER 19 Regarding Discovery Dispute, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/29/2016. (Hall, S)

1 McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard,
Wayte & Carruth LLP
2 Gordon M. Park, #72190
Todd W. Baxter, #152212
3 Dana B. Denno, #227971
7647 North Fresno Street
4 Fresno, California 93720
Telephone:
[phone]
5 Facsimile:
[phone]
6 Attorneys for STATE FARM GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION

10
11 HALONDA NAFF and JARVIS NAFF,

Case No. 1:15-cv-00515-JLT

12

STIPULATION REGARDING
DISCOVERY DISPUTE AND ORDER

Plaintiffs,

13

v.

14 STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY and DOES 1 through 25,
15 inclusive,
16

Defendants.

17
AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIMS
18
Pursuant to Court’s January 15, 2016 Order, Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants HALONDA
19
NAFF AND JARVIS NAFF (“NAFFS”) and Defendant/Counterclaimant STATE FARM
20
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY (“State Farm”) have met and conferred and respectfully
21
submit this Stipulation re: Discovery Dispute as a proposed resolution of disputes pertaining to
22
certain records subpoenaed by State Farm as follows:
23
1.

State Farm has issued subpoenas to the following entities seeking discovery pertaining to

24
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Halonda Naff.
25
26
27

Bakersfield Memorial Hospital
420 34th Street
Bakersfield CA 93301
[phone]

28
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP

STIPULATION RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE AND ORDER

1
2

Lifetime Chiropractic
W. Stuart Tatsuno, D.C.
1002 Wible Road, Ste. H
Bakersfield, CA 93304
[phone]

3
4
5
6

Health Information Management
551 Shanley Court
Bakersfield, CA 93311
(661) 632-51768

7
8
9

11

Pair & Marotta Physical Therapy
2603 G Street
Bakersfield, CA 93301
[phone]

12 2.

With respect to Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Jarvis Naff, State Farm has issued the following

13

subpoenas:

14

Health Information Management
551 Shanley Court
Bakersfield, CA 93311
(661) 632-51768

10

15
16
17

3.

none of the records are relevant to the pending claims in this action.

18
19

4.

alternate causation or contributing factors, other than the claim handling of State Farm, as

21

the source of Plaintiffs’ emotional distress, if any.

22
5.

agreed, provided the Court is amenable to conducting the review. At this time, the parties

25

do not know the volume of documents responsive to the foregoing subpoenas.

26

28
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP

Plaintiffs have proposed that the foregoing records, to the extent they have not already
been produced, be produced directly to the Court for in camera review. Defendants have

24

27

State Farm submits that the Plaintiffs have put these records at issue, in that the requested
records may be relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims of emotional distress, and may support

20

23

As to each of the subpoenas, Plaintiffs object to the production of records and contend that

///
///
2
STIPULATION RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE AND ORDER

1 6.

In the event the Court finds the records, or any portions therein, should be disclosed, such

2

records will be produced to the Parties. In the event the Court finds no records that should

3

be disclosed, the Court will issue an order broadly outlining its findings and indicating that

4

the subpoenas should be quashed.

5
6 Dated:

MARDEROSIAN & COHEN

January 29, 2016

7

/s/ Michael G. Marderosian
By:

8

Michael G. Marderosian
Heather S. Cohen,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

9
10
11
12

McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,
WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP

13

/s/ Gordon M. Park

Dated:

January 29, 2016

By:

14

Gordon M. Park
Todd W. Baxter
Dana B. Denno
Attorneys for STATE FARM GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY

15
16
17

ORDER

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Based on the Stipulation of the parties hereto and good cause appearing therefor,
IT IS ORDERED that the foregoing records, to the extent they have not already been
produced, will be produced directly to the Court for in camera review.

In the event the Court

finds the records, or any portions therein, should be disclosed, such records will be produced to the
Parties. In the event the Court finds no records that should be disclosed, the Court will issue an
order broadly outlining its findings and indicating that the subpoenas should be quashed.
Dated: January

29

, 2016

26
The Honorable Jennifer L. Thurston

27
28
MCCORMICK, BARSTOW,
SHEPPARD, W AYTE &
CARRUTH LLP

3
STIPULATION RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE AND ORDER