National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA v. Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 33

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/1/13 GRANTING 29 Motion to Compel; the deposition on the topics listed within Exhibit A shall proceed; no sanctions shall issue in connection with this dispute. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF PITTSBURGH, PA,
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER
v.

14
15

No. 2:12-cv-01380 MCE KJN

ALLIED PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,

16

Defendant.

17
Currently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion to compel filed pursuant to

18
19

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a).1 (ECF No. 29.) The parties filed a Joint Statement in

20

connection with the motion. (ECF No. 30.)
Plaintiff National Union Fire Insurance Co. (“National Union” or “plaintiff”) seeks to

21
22

depose a person most knowledgeable (“PMK”) of Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Co.

23

(“Allied” or “defendant”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6). The deposition

24

notice indicates that plaintiff seeks to depose Allied’s PMK on five topics pertaining to “claims

25

handling” in connection with the car accident underlying this dispute.2 (Declaration of Jay

26

1

27
28

This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local
Rule 302(c)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
2
The deposition notice also requested the production of various documents, but the parties’
Joint Statement (ECF No. 30) reflects that the parties reached an agreement regarding the
1

1

Christofferson (“Christofferson Decl.”), ECF No. 29-1, Exh. A.)

2

This matter came on for hearing on June 27, 2013. Attorney Jay Christofferson attended

3

on behalf of the plaintiff. Attorney Renee Callantine attended on behalf of the defendant. The

4

undersigned has considered the briefs, oral arguments, and appropriate portions of the record in

5

this case and, for the reasons stated on the record during the hearing and herein, grants plaintiff’s

6

motion. (ECF No. 29.)

7

As the undersigned stated during the hearing, the deposition of the person most

8

knowledgeable regarding Allied’s “handling” in connection with the car accident underlying this

9

action may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relevant to claims or defenses in this

10

pending case, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2), potentially including evidence pertaining to the

11

threshold issue of the driver’s “coverage” under Allied’s insurance policies. Accordingly, the

12

deposition of Allied’s PMK regarding the topics set forth in the deposition notice dated May 16,

13

2013, and attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Jay Christofferson (ECF No. 29-1), shall

14

proceed.3 The undersigned appreciates the parties’ demonstrated abilities to resolve discovery

15

disputes without resorting to judicial intervention. However, should a dispute arise during the

16

deposition, and should the parties be unable to resolve it after meeting and conferring in good

17

faith, the parties may contact the undersigned’s courtroom deputy at [phone] to schedule a

18

telephonic conference with the undersigned.

19

As the undersigned also stated during the hearing, the undersigned makes no

20

determination regarding plaintiff’s ultimate ability to prove claims of equitable subrogation,

21

equitable contribution, or equitable indemnity, just as the undersigned makes no determination

22

regarding defendant’s ultimate ability to successfully assert defenses to such claims. These

23

central legal issues are to be decided by the assigned United States District Judge at trial or upon

24

motions for summary judgment, and shall not be decided by way of this discovery dispute.

25

////

26
27
28

production of such documents. (Id. at 8.) Thus, the documents requested within the deposition
notice are no longer in dispute and they are not addressed further herein.
3
The undersigned appreciates the parties’ willingness to stipulate to certain issues that would
obviate the need to delve into certain areas during the deposition.
2

1
2

For all the foregoing reasons, and for those stated on the record during the hearing, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 29) is hereby granted, and the deposition on the

3
4

topics listed within the deposition notice (Exh. A to Christofferson Decl.) shall

5

proceed.

6

2. No sanctions shall issue in connection with this dispute.4

7

3. Should a dispute arise during the deposition, and should the parties be unable to

8

resolve it after meeting and conferring in good faith, the parties may contact the

9

undersigned’s courtroom deputy at [phone] to schedule a telephonic

10

conference with the undersigned.

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 7/1/2013

13
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Neither party requested sanctions in connection with this discovery dispute.
3