Lennar Mare Island, LLC v. Steadfast Insurance Company

Filing 414

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/4/16 ORDERING that Steadfast's motions to quash 2:12-cv-2182 393 ; 2:16-cv-0291 39 are DENIED. Accordingly, the third party reinsurers shall produce documents responsive to the req uests set forth in Lennars subpoenas within a reasonable timeframe. If a reinsurer subject to one of the subpoenas has any objections to the subpoena requests directed towards it, that reinsurer may file a properly noticed motion to quash or mod ify the subpoena on its own behalf. Any such motions should be filed as soon as reasonably possible; The courts April 7, 2015 order in 2:12-cv-2182 that the parties be required to meet in person to meet and confer re any discovery disputes in that action prior to filing a discovery motion 263 is VACATED. The parties may satisfy the meet and confer requirement telephonically or through other remote means prior to filing future discovery motions provided that such communications are not treated as a perfunctory exercise; This order resolves the motions to quash filed at ECF No. 393 in 2:12-cv-2182, and 39 in 2:16-cv-0291. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LENNAR MARE ISLAND, et al., 12 13 14 15 Plaintiffs, v. STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants. 16 17 LENNAR MARE ISLAND, LLC, 18 19 20 21 No. 2:12-cv-2182-KJM-KJN No. 2:16-cv-0291-KJM-KJN Plaintiff, ORDER v. STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. 22 23 24 On November 3, 2016, these cases were before the undersigned to address 25 defendant/counterclaimant Steadfast Insurance Company’s (“Steadfast”) motion to quash the 26 third party subpoenas plaintiff/counter defendant Lennar Mare Island, LLC (“Lennar”) served on 27 non-party reinsurers General Reinsurance Corporation, Guy Carpenter & Company, LLC, 28 1 1 Odyssey Re Holdings Corp., Swiss Re America Holding Corporation, and Transatlantic 2 Reinsurance Company (collectively “reinsurers”). (Case No. 12-cv-2182, ECF No. 393; Case 3 No. 2:16-cv-0291, ECF No. 39.)1 Attorney Allan Packer appeared on behalf of Lennar. 4 Attorneys Dale Oliver and Jack Baumann appeared on behalf of Steadfast. Attorneys John 5 McConkie, Serajul Ali, and John Jacobson appeared telephonically on behalf of intervenor 6 plaintiff United States. Attorney Amanda Hairston appeared telephonically on behalf of 7 counterclaimant/counter defendant CH2M Hill Constructors, Inc. Based on Steadfast’s motions and the parties’ joint statements regarding this discovery 8 9 10 dispute, other relevant filings, and oral arguments, and for the reasons discussed below and on the record during the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 11 1. Steadfast’s motions to quash (Case No. 12-cv-2182, ECF No. 393; Case No. 2:16-cv- 12 0291, ECF No. 39) are DENIED. The court finds that the information requested 13 through the subpoenas is relevant to the issues in this case and, to the extent Steadfast 14 has standing to quash the subpoenas directed at the third party reinsurers, see 15 California Sportfishing Prot. All. v. Chico Scrap Metal, Inc., 299 F.R.D. 638, 643 16 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (“The general rule . . . is that a party has no standing to quash a 17 subpoena served upon a third party, except as to claims of privilege relating to the 18 documents being sought.”); Wahoo Int’l, Inc. v. Phix Doctor, Inc., 2014 WL 3573400, 19 at *2 (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2014) (“Under FRCP 45(c)(3), a party lacks standing to 20 challenge a subpoena issued to a non-party unless the party claims a personal right or 21 privilege with respect to the documents requested in the subpoena.”), it fails to meet 22 its burden in showing that it holds a personal right or privilege with regard to any 23 specific documents sought from the reinsurers. Accordingly, the third party reinsurers 24 shall produce documents responsive to the requests set forth in Lennar’s subpoenas 25 within a reasonable timeframe. If a reinsurer subject to one of the subpoenas has any 26 objections to the subpoena requests directed towards it, that reinsurer may file a 27 28 1 The motions to quash filed in both actions are identical. Accordingly, this order treats Steadfast’s two motions to quash as a single motion. 2 1 properly noticed motion to quash or modify the subpoena on its own behalf. Any such 2 motions should be filed as soon as reasonably possible. 3 2. To the extent the parties believe a protective order regarding the documents to be 4 produced by the third party reinsurers pursuant to this order is necessary, the parties 5 shall work cooperatively to develop such a stipulated order with provisions 6 appropriate to address the parties’ concerns regarding the reinsurers’ production in 7 response to the subpoenas. 8 3. The court’s April 7, 2015 order in 2:12-cv-2182 that the parties be required to meet in 9 person to meet and confer regarding any discovery disputes in that action prior to 10 filing a discovery motion (ECF No. 263 at 4, 9-10) is VACATED. The parties may 11 satisfy the meet and confer requirement telephonically or through other remote means 12 prior to filing future discovery motions provided that such communications are not 13 treated as a perfunctory exercise. 14 15 16 17 4. This order resolves the motions to quash filed at ECF No. 393 in Case No. 12-cv2182, and ECF No. 39 in Case No. 2:16-cv-0291. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 4, 2016 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?