Banga v. Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance Agency

Filing 91

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 12/17/2020 DENYING 69 Motion to Compel; GRANTING Defendants additional 10 interrogatories to address the late-produced letters at issue in the motion; ORDERING the discovery deadline is extended t o 3/3/2021, all motions related to discovery to be filed no later than 2/17/2021, the dispositive motions deadline is extended to 4/7/2021, and parties to file a Joint Notice of Trial Readiness not later than 30 days after receiving this Court's ruling on the last filed dispositive motion; and DENYING as MOOT 88 and 90 Motions for and Extension of Discovery Deadlines. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KAMLESH BANGA,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:18-cv-1072 MCE AC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

AMERIPRISE AUTO & HOME
INSURANCE AGENCY et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

This matter is before the court on defendants’ motion to compel a second deposition of

19

plaintiff. ECF No. 69. The parties did not file a joint statement, though plaintiff submitted an

20

opposition (ECF No. 72) and defense counsel submitted a declaration stating plaintiff refused to

21

participate in the process of creating a joint statement (ECF No. 77). The matter was submitted

22

on the papers. ECF No. 70. Based on a review of the parties’ arguments and the record, the

23

motion to compel is DENIED; defendants may pose necessary questions to plaintiff through

24

interrogatories.

25

Further, the undersigned sua sponte extends the discovery deadline to March 3, 2021. All

26

motions related to discovery must be filed no later than February 17, 2021. The dispositive

27

motions deadline is extended to April 7, 2021. The parties shall file a Joint Notice of Trial

28

Readiness not later than thirty (30) days after receiving this Court’s ruling on the last filed
1

1

dispositive Motion. Plaintiff’s pending motions for an extension of discovery deadlines (ECF

2

Nos. 88 and 90) are DENIED as MOOT.

3
4

I.

Relevant Background

This action stems from a dispute over insurance coverage for alleged water damage to

5

plaintiff’s home as a result of a January 18, 2016 high windstorm. Revised Third Amended

6

Complaint (“RTAC”), ECF No. 67-3 at 1. Plaintiff alleges defendant insurers failed to properly

7

pay her claim and brings several causes of action, including breach of contract and bad faith.

8

RTAC at 3, 10-21.

9

This matter was removed from state court on April 30, 2018. ECF No. 1. On November

10

15, 2018, the matter was sent to this court’s Voluntary Dispute Resolution Program (“VDRP”).

11

ECF No. 20. The matter remained in VDRP until March 12, 2020, when it failed to settle and

12

was removed from the program. On March 18, 2020, a pre-trial scheduling order was issued,

13

setting a discovery deadline of November 9, 2020, and a dispositive motions deadline of

14

December 28, 2020. ECF No. 37. On September 18, 2020, by stipulation of the parties, the

15

discovery deadline was extended to January 8, 2021 and the dispositive motions deadline was

16

extended to February 26, 2021. ECF No. 56.

17
18

II.

Motion

Defendants ask the court to require plaintiff to sit for a second deposition because plaintiff

19

failed to produce two documents responsive to discovery requests prior to her October 8, 2020

20

deposition, but used these documents while deposing defendants’ expert on November 18, 2020.

21

ECF No. 69 at 2. Plaintiff contends that she “did testify she had produced almost all the

22

documents; however, if there were any documents that she had not produced, she would provide

23

them to you as soon as she locate them.” ECF No. 72 at 3. At issue are two letters: one dated

24

March 2, 2017 and one dated April 26, 2017. In response to defendants’ motion, plaintiff

25

submitted a declaration stating, “I represent to the Court that I had inadvertently omitted to

26

produce the documents; however, I had rectified this omission that is the subject of this motion.”

27

ECF No. 72-1 at 2. Plaintiff further contends that the March 2, 2017 letter was contained in her

28

earlier request for default judgment. ECF No. 72 at 4 (referencing ECF No. 51-7). Plaintiff
2

1

suggests that any additional questioning related to the documents be done through interrogatories

2

and request for admission. ECF No. 72 at 4. There is no dispute as to the relevancy or

3

responsiveness of the documents.

4

III.

5

Analysis

Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Federal Rules provides, “[a] party must obtain leave of court,

6

and the court must grant leave to the extent consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2) if the parties

7

have not stipulated to the deposition and the deponent has already been deposed in the case.”

8

“Whether to permit a second deposition lies in the court’s discretion.” Ransom v. Herrera, No.

9

1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG PC, 2018 WL 4008386, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2018); see also FCC

10

v. Mizuho Medy Co. Ltd., 07-cv-189 JAH (NLS), 2009 WL 10672927, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 24,

11

2009); Owino v. CoreCivic, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-1112-JLS-NLS, 2019 WL 2867278, at *2 (S.D.

12

Cal. July 3, 2019); Tramm v. Porter Memorial Hosp., 128 F.R.D. 666, 668 (N.D. Ind. 1989).

13

Rule 26(b)(2)(C) states that leave should be granted unless the discovery sought is unreasonably

14

cumulative or duplicative or can be obtained from a more convenient, less burdensome or less

15

expensive source; the party seeking the discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the

16

information through discovery; or the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its

17

likely benefit.

18

Here, there is no dispute that the letters at issue were responsive to defendants’ discovery

19

requests and at least the April 26, 2017 document was not produced in any form before plaintiff’s

20

deposition. Defendants argue that “[r]egardless of whether this failure was inadvertent or

21

intentional, IDS should be permitted to question Banga about these previously unproduced

22

communications.” The court agrees, though requiring plaintiff to submit to a second deposition

23

for questioning related to two letters is overly burdensome, expensive, and inconvenient.

24

Defendants do not explain why the necessary questioning could not be done through

25

interrogatories. The undersigned believes it could be. The discovery deadlines will be extended

26

as described below to ensure adequate time for interrogatories to be served and answered. In

27

recognition of the fact that defendants may have already served the presumptively allowed 25

28

////
3

1

interrogatories allowed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a), they are granted an additional 10 interrogatories

2

to address the two letters.

3

As should go without saying, all parties are expected to participate in discovery and

4

motions practice in good faith. All parties are required to comply with the undersigned’s

5

Standing Orders, located on the Court’s webpage, the Local Rules of this Court, and the Federal

6

Rules of Civil Procedure. Failure to do so may result in sanctions.

7

IV.

Conclusion

8

For the reasons explained above, the motion to compel (ECF No. 69) is DENIED, though

9

defendants are granted 10 additional interrogatories to address the late-produced letters at issue in

10
11

the motion.
Further, the undersigned sua sponte extends the discovery deadline to March 3, 2021. All

12

motions related to discovery must be filed no later than February 17, 2021. The dispositive

13

motions deadline is extended to April 7, 2021. The parties shall file a Joint Notice of Trial

14

Readiness not later than thirty (30) days after receiving this Court’s ruling on the last filed

15

dispositive Motion.

16
17

Plaintiff’s pending motions for and extension of discovery deadlines (ECF Nos. 88 and
90) are DENIED as MOOT.

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED: December 17, 2020

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4