Lennar Mare Island, LLC v. Steadfast Insurance Company

Filing 77

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/25/2013 GRANTING and DENYING in part, without prejudice, Steadfast's 43 44 66 Motions for Relief from Presumptive Discovery Limits for Depositions. Parties shall appear telephonically at 10:00 AM Hearing set for 12/20/2013. A three-page Joint Statement shall be submitted by 12/18/2013. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LENNAR MARE ISLAND, LLC,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-02182-KJM-KJN

v.

ORDER

STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On September 11, 2013, defendant and counter-claimant Steadfast Insurance Company

18
19

(“Steadfast”) filed its Notice of Motion For Relief From Presumptive Discovery Limits For

20

Depositions, and the parties filed their related Joint Statement and supporting declarations on

21

November 14, 2013.1 (ECF Nos. 43-45, 66.) On October 29, 2013, plaintiff and counter-

22

defendant Lennar Mare Island (“LMI”) filed its Notice of Motion for Relief from Discovery

23

Limitations Re: Interrogatories, and the parties filed their related Joint Statement and supporting

24

declarations on November 14, 2013. (ECF Nos. 58, 66.)

25

Both matters came on for hearing on November 21, 2013. (ECF No. 70.) Attorney Ryan

26

Werner appeared on behalf of LMI. Attorney David Campagne appeared on behalf of Steadfast.

27
28

1

This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local
Rule 302(c)(1).
1

1

Attorney Amanda Hairston appeared on behalf of counter-defendant and counter-claimant CH2M

2

Hill Constructors, Inc. (“CCI”).

3
4

For all the reasons discussed on the record during the hearing, it is HEREBY ORDERED
THAT:

5

1.

Steadfast’s Motion For Relief From Presumptive Discovery Limits For Depositions

6

(ECF Nos. 43-44, 66) is granted in part, and denied in part without prejudice as

7

follows:

8

a. The presumptive 7-hour limit for depositions shall be extended to a 14-hour

9

limit for the following four witnesses: Mr. Sheaff, Mr. Siler, Ms. Pennington,

10

and Ms. Roebuck. If necessary, the parties may stipulate to further extending

11

the 14-hour limit for these deponents. Absent such stipulation, the court will

12

entertain a motion requesting further extensions for these and/or other

13

deponents.

14

b. Steadfast has not yet shown that deposing in excess of the presumptive limit of

15

10 depositions per party is necessary, especially given that no depositions have

16

yet occurred in this case.2 However, Steadfast may well make such a showing

17

in the future, perhaps after depositions have commenced, such that the denial

18

of Steadfast’s request is without prejudice at this time.

19

c. Given the breadth of this case, however, on or before noon on December 18,

20

2013, the parties shall submit a Joint Statement, no longer than five pages,

21

consisting of a jointly-prepared list of each of Steadfast’s proposed deponents,

22

a brief description of the reasons Steadfast seeks to depose each proposed

23

deponent, and the likely topics of each proposed deponent’s knowledge. The

24

list must also include LMI’s position as to each proposed deponent. For each

25

proposed deponent, LMI shall also state whether it agrees that such individual

26
27

2

The undersigned notes that a motion for partial summary judgment and a motion to sever —
both of which may directly impact the scope of necessary discovery — are both currently pending
before the assigned district judge. (ECF Nos. 51, 41.)

28
2

1

should be deposed, whether it believes that such individual would give only

2

duplicative testimony or otherwise be unnecessary (perhaps given a

3

willingness to stipulate to facts that would obviate the need for the proposed

4

deponent’s testimony), and/or whether and why LMI believes it would be

5

premature to agree to depose such individual at this time.
d. The parties shall appear telephonically3 at a hearing at 10:00 a.m. on

6
7

December 20, 2013, and should be prepared to discuss the list of proposed

8

deponents, and to what extent the list should exceed the 10-deposition limit,

9

and those proposed deponents they have not been able to reach an agreement

10

upon.
2. As to LMI’s Motion for Relief from Discovery Limitations Re: Interrogatories (ECF

11
12

Nos. 58, 66), the motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows:

13

a.

While some additional interrogatories may be appropriate in this case, LMI’s

14

proposed additional “state all facts” interrogatory (Interrogatory No. 6) targets

15

every single Request For Admission (“RFA”) that Steadfast did not

16

unequivocally admit, thereby promulgating more than one hundred additional

17

interrogatories and sweeping too broadly. Accordingly, LMI shall reexamine

18

Steadfast’s responses to the RFAs and shall narrow the scope of Interrogatory

19

No. 6 such that it targets fewer than all RFAs that Steadfast “did not

20

unequivocally admit.”

21

i. For instance, where Steadfast responded to certain RFAs by stating an

22

inability to admit or deny due to a lack of knowledge/facts, LMI should

23

exclude these RFA responses from the scope of those targeted by

24

Interrogatory No. 6. During the hearing, LMI also indicated that it was

25

amenable to further narrowing the breadth of Interrogatory No. 6 by

26
27
28

3

At least 7 days prior to the hearing, counsel for each party shall contact the undersigned’s
courtroom deputy, Matt Caspar, at [phone], so as to confirm which phone numbers the
court should call when connecting the telephonic hearing.
3

1

excluding RFA responses pertaining to the issue of Government

2

Authority, as well as excluding other RFA responses for which LMI

3

does not truly need a “state all facts” response from Steadfast.

4

Accordingly, LMI shall draft a narrowed list specifically identifying

5

which specific RFA responses it seeks to follow up upon through its

6

Interrogatory No. 6.

7
8
9

ii. Within 7 days of the date of issuance of this order, LMI shall provide
Steadfast with the above-described narrowed list.
b. Upon receipt of LMI’s above-described narrowed list, Steadfast shall promptly

10

begin preparing its responses to LMI’s narrowed Interrogatory No. 6.

11

However, if Steadfast finds that parts of LMI’s narrowed list are overreaching

12

or that Steadfast cannot reasonably respond to the “state all facts” interrogatory

13

even as limited by LMI pursuant to the foregoing, and if the parties are unable

14

to resolve the issue following good faith meet and confer efforts, on or before

15

December 18, 2013, the parties shall submit a three-page Joint Statement

16

describing the dispute. The court will take up the matter at the telephonic

17

hearing already scheduled for December 20, 2013, at 10:00 a.m.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2013

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4