Terra Insurance Company v. New York Life Investment Management LLC

Filing 69

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES. Signed by Judge Alsup on December 4, 2009. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2009) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/4/2009: # 1 Amended Order) (whalc1, COURT STAFF).

Case3:09-cv-01609-WHA Document68-1

Filed12/03/09 Page2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
650 CALIFORNIA STREET NINTH FLOOR SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108 [phone]

[PROPOSED] ORDER Plaintiff Terra Insurance Company ("Plaintiff") filed a letter on November 24, 2009 seeking further responses to certain discovery requests. Defendant New York Life Investment Management LLC ("Defendant") filed a response on November 30, 2009. That same date, third party New York Life Insurance Company submitted an objection to Plaintiff's proposed discovery. The Court ordered Plaintiff and Defendant to participate in a further meet and confer in the Court's jury room on December 1, 2009. The parties met and conferred and resolved all disputes raised in Plaintiff's November 24 letter with the exception of Defendant's response to Request for Production No. 5 in Plaintiff's second set of document requests. A hearing was conducted and appearances were noted on the record. Having read the written submissions and considered the oral arguments of counsel, the Court denies Plaintiff's request to seek further responses to Document Request No. 5. The primary issue in dispute is the Quality Tilt program. Defendant has represented that it has produced all documents it could locate pertaining to the Quality Tilt, with the exception of implementation documents with respect to which the parties have reached an agreement. Defendant has also represented that it does not routinely provide advice to New York Life Insurance Company regarding the allocation of its investments, the economy or market forecasting. The Court finds that Plaintiff has been promised or received the evidence that is directly related to the issues raised in the Complaint. This order is without prejudice of Plaintiff's right to seek further production in response to Request for Production No. 5 if deposition testimony of Defendant or New York Life Insurance Company witnesses establishes otherwise.
UNIT ED
ISTRIC ES D TC AT T

RT U O

IT IS SO ORDERED.

S

December 4, 2009. Dated: ________________

N

F D IS T IC T O R

BARGER & WOLEN LLP

1
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER RESPONSES

A

________________________________ lsup illiam A Judge W The Honorable William Alsup United States District Judge
ER

C

LI

FO

R NIA

IT IS S

O ORD

ERED

NO

RT

H