Welle v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company

Filing 45

Order by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore regarding 43 Discovery Letter Brief.(kawlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/30/2013)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6
7

D.O. DANA M. WELLE,

8

Plaintiff,

9

v.
PROVIDENT LIFE AND ACCIDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY,

10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.: 3:12-cv-3016 EMC (KAW)
ORDER REGARDING OCTOBER 25, 2013
JOINT DISCOVERY LETTER

Defendant.

12
13

Plaintiff Dana Welle brought claims against Defendant Provident Life and Accident

14

Insurance Company for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair

15

dealing after Provident denied her claim for disability insurance benefits. On October 25, 2013,

16

the parties filed the instant joint discovery letter. The matter was referred to the undersigned.

17

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this matter is deemed suitable for disposition without

18

hearing. As set forth below, the court overrules Provident's objections to Request for Production

19

No. 65 and sustains Provident's objections to Request for Production No. 4 to Natalya Vayn's

20

Deposition Notice.

21

I.

22

Plaintiff requests "[a] true and correct copy of all DOCUMENTS that reflect, refer or

Request for Production No. 65

23

relate to PROVIDENT's processes, protocols, procedures and/or guidelines to refer a file to [the]

24

Special Investigations/Fraud Unit ('SIU') from 2008 to present." (Joint Ltr., Ex. A. at 5.)

25

(capitalization in original).) Provident objects to the request on the grounds that it is overbroad,

26

unduly burdensome, vague, ambiguous, seeks information that is not relevant to any claim or

27
28

1

1

defense, seeks confidential or proprietary business records, and may encompass documents

2

protected by the attorney-client or attorney work-product privileges. (Id., Ex. B. at 6.)

3

The court overrules Provident's objections that the request is overbroad, vague, or

4

ambiguous. Provident should be able to easily identify the materials that relate to the referral of a

5

claim to the SIU. In that respect, the request is sufficiently detailed as to allow Provident to

6

discern the subject of Plaintiff's request. The objection that the request is unduly burdensome also

7

fails. If the materials are contained within certain manuals, as appears to be the case here, or

8

stored in an electronic format, any burden to Provident is minimal, especially given that Plaintiff

9

seeks only those materials respecting the "refer[al of] a file to" the SIU.

10

As for Provident's objections that the materials sought are confidential, proprietary, or

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

protected by the attorney-client or attorney work-product privileges, Provident has made no

12

showing supporting such characterizations of the materials at issue nor has it attached a privilege

13

log to the parties' joint letter. Instead, Provident only asserts the position that because this court

14

has concluded that certain documents in the SIU file prepared in connection with the investigation

15

of Plaintiff's claim are entitled to work-product protection, the materials Plaintiff seeks here are

16

also protected by the attorney-client and work-product privileges. See Joint Ltr. at 7. This

17

position is unavailing. Insofar as Provident asserts that the materials are confidential or

18

proprietary, Provident has not explained why the stipulated protective order in place does not

19

adequately preserve the confidential or proprietary nature of the information at issue.

20

Provident's objection on the grounds of relevancy also fails. Federal Rule of Civil

21

Procedure 26(b)(1) permits "discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any

22

party’s claim or defense." The information sought "need not be admissible at the trial" so long as

23

it "appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. The

24

policies and procedures governing the referral of Plaintiff's claim to the SIU are relevant insofar

25

as they shaped the investigation which culminated in the denial of Plaintiff's claim. Even if

26

Provident's assertion that the claims department, not the SIU terminated Plaintiff's claim is

27

accurate, whether the investigation of Plaintiff's claim adhered to established policies and

28

procedures governing the referrals of similar claims speaks to the overall handling of Plaintiff's
2

1

claim, and ultimately, whether Provident properly denied her claim. While Plaintiff seeks

2

materials dating back to 2008, she does not state why materials from that date are relevant. The

3

court therefore finds that the materials are only relevant as of April 7, 2009, when Plaintiff first

4

sought disability benefits under the policy.
Accordingly, Provident shall supplement its responses to Request for Production No. 65

5
6

within 30 days of this order.1 Such supplemental responses shall include information dating back

7

to April 7, 2009, when Plaintiff first submitted a claim for disability insurance benefits.

8

II.

Request for Production No. 4 to Deposition Notice of Natalya Vayn

9

Natalya Vayn is the SIU investigator who was responsible for the investigating Plaintiff.
(Id. at 4.) Plaintiff served Natalya Vayn with a deposition notice on August 26, 2013. (Joint Ltr.,

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Ex. C.) Included with that notice was a list of documents requested. (Id., Ex. C at 5.) In item

12

four on that list, Plaintiff requests:

13

True and correct copies of the following items which have been kept in the
regular course of business: the complete CLAIMS manuals and/or procedures
manuals, POLICY statements, bulletins, DOCUMENTS, COMMUNICATIONS
or memoranda which set forth company practices or policies regarding the
handling, processing and/or INVESTIGATION of CLAIMS submitted by YOUR
insured and which were in effect or which were utilized by YOU, and/or any
claims administrator at the time WELLE's CLAIM(s), submitted pursuant to the
above-referenced POLICY, was handled, processed and/or investigated[.]

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

(Id. (capitalization in original).) Provident objects to the request, asserting that it is compound,
overly broad, unduly burdensome, oppressive, vague, ambiguous, and unintelligible. (Id., Ex. D
at 8.) Provident also objects on the grounds that the request concerns documents protected by the
attorney-client and attorney work-product privileges as well as confidential, proprietary, or trade
secret information. (Id.) Provident further objects that the request seeks information that is not
relevant to any claim or defense and is outside the scope of the following deposition category:
"Pursuant to FRCP 30(b)(6), the person most knowledgeable from Provident Life and Accident

25
26
27
28

1

Provident states that "[p]rocedures to refer a file to SIU are contained in the claims manual that
has already been produced," however, it appears that this production of documents may have been
limited to some, but not all, of the materials requested. See Joint Ltr. at 9. If Provident has
produced all such materials, it may clarify that in its supplemental resposnes.
3

1

Insurance Company's Special Investigations Unit ("SIU") regarding Provident's investigation of

2

Dana Welle." (Id. at 3.)

3

"A party who wants to depose a person by oral questions must give reasonable written

4

notice to every other party." FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b). "The notice to a party deponent may be

5

accompanied by a request under Rule 34 to produce documents and tangible things at the

6

deposition." Id. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a) provides:

7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

A party may serve on any other party a request within the scope of Rule
26(b):
(1) to produce and permit the requesting party or its representative to
inspect, copy, test, or sample the following items in the responding party's
possession, custody, or control:
(A) any designated documents or electronically stored information-including writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, sound recordings,
images, and other data or data compilations--stored in any medium from which
information can be obtained either directly or, if necessary, after translation by the
responding party into a reasonably usable form . . . .
Such request "must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to be

14

inspected." FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(1)(A).
15

The court sustains Provident's objection that the above request is overbroad, vague and
16

ambiguous, and unduly burdensome. In the request, Plaintiff does not identify any particular set
17

of documents or materials. Instead, Plaintiff asks that Provident produce the universe of materials
18

that may or may not have affected the resolution of her claim at any point in time. In the parties'
19

joint letter, Plaintiff urges that the court read this request as one for the "Special Investigative
20

Unit Policy and Procedures [Manual]" Natalya Vayn referenced in her September 24, 2013
21

deposition. See Joint Ltr. at 4. Plaintiff argues that prior to Natalya Vayn's deposition, she did
22

not know that the manual existed. It appears, however, that Plaintiff was aware that Provident
23

had investigated her claim, see Compl. ¶ 17 ("Then, in the beginning of 2011, Provident ordered
24

surveillance as part of its claims investigations.), and with that knowledge, she could have
25

appropriately tailored her requests for production to seek materials governing that investigation
26

and other investigations of its kind.
27
28

4

1
2

For these reasons, the court sustains Provident's objections that above request is
overbroad, vague and ambiguous, and unduly burdensome.

3

III.

4

As set forth above, Provident shall supplement its responses to Request for Production No.

5
6
7

CONCLUSION

65 within 30 days of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 30, 2013
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5