Lennar Mare Island, LLC v. Steadfast Insurance Company

Filing 467

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 2/17/2017 GRANTING 438 , 440 Motions to Compel; ORDERING Steadfast Insurance Company to produce to Lennar Mare Island, LLC by 04:00 PM on 3/3/2017, a declaration representing upon Steadfast 9;s information and belief that it has produced every document that, as of that date, comprises the claims files Lennar seeks through its request for inspection numbers 37 and 124 and identifying, for each such claim file described in Lennar's requests, the produced documents that make up each such file by their Bates stamp numbers; GRANTING Lennar Mare Island, LLC's Request for attorneys' fees for the amount of $10,800.00. (Michel, G.)

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 February 16, 2017, these cases were before the undersigned to address 25 plaintiff/counterdefendant Lennar Mare Island, LLC’s (“Lennar”) motions to compel Steadfast 26 Insurance Company (“Steadfast”) to amend and/or supplement its responses to Lennar’s request 27 for inspection numbers 37 and 124. (ECF Nos. 438, 440 in Case No. 12-cv-2182; ECF Nos. 73, 28 1 1 75 in Case No. 2:16-cv-0291.)1 Attorney Allan Packer appeared on behalf of Lennar. Attorney 2 John Purcell appeared telephonically on behalf of Steadfast. Attorney Mitchell Zeff appeared 3 telephonically on behalf of intervenor plaintiff United States. Attorneys Adam Dawson and 4 Amanda Hairston appeared telephonically on behalf of counterclaimant/counter defendant CH2M 5 Hill Constructors, Inc. Based on Lennar’s motions and the parties’ joint statements regarding these discovery 6 7 disputes, other relevant filings, and oral arguments, and for the reasons discussed below and on 8 the record during the hearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Lennar’s motions to compel (ECF Nos. 438, 440 in Case No. 12-cv-2182; ECF Nos. 9 10 73, 75 in Case No. 2:16-cv-0291) are GRANTED. 11 2. By no later than 4:00 p.m. on March 3, 2017, Steadfast shall produce to Lennar a 12 declaration by its counsel representing upon Steadfast’s information and belief that it 13 has produced every document that, as of that date, comprises the claims files Lennar 14 seeks through its request for inspection numbers 37 and 124 and identifying, for each 15 such claim file described in Lennar’s requests, the produced documents that make up 16 each such file by their Bates stamp numbers. 17 3. Lennar’s request for $10,800.00 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 18 Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) is GRANTED. For the reasons discussed on the record during 19 the hearing, the court finds that Steadfast was not substantially justified in its 20 responses to Lennar’s discovery requests at issue. Furthermore, the court finds that 21 the declarations of Ryan L. Werner submitted in support of Lennar’s request for 22 attorneys’ fees (ECF Nos. 456, 459 in Case No. 12-cv-2182, and ECF Nos. 90, 93 in 23 Case No. 2:16-cv-0291) provide a sufficient basis to support such a request, and that 24 the amount requested is reasonable under the circumstances. Accordingly, Steadfast 25 shall pay Lennar $10,800.00 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A) 26 for the reasonable attorneys’ fees Lennar incurred in its efforts to obtain the discovery 27 28 1 The motions to compel filed in both actions are identical. 2 1 2 3 4 5 sought through its present motions to compel. 4. This order resolves the motions to compel filed at ECF Nos. 438, 440 in Case No. 12cv-2182, and ECF Nos. 73, 75 in Case No. 2:16-cv-0291. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 17, 2017 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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?