Gelfand v. North American Capacity Insurance Company

Filing 43

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 42 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Written Discovery. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/17/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

TODD GELFAND,

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-12-4819 EMC

Plaintiff,
v.
NORTH AMERICAN CAPACITY
INSURANCE COMPANY,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION
OF WRITTEN DISCOVERY
(Docket No. 42)

12
13

Defendant.
___________________________________/

14
15
16

The parties have filed a joint discovery letter brief concerning the production of written

17

discovery. Plaintiff Todd Gelfand (“Plaintiff”) is seeking the immediate production of a document

18

titled “Construction Defect Claim Handling Expectations.” Defendant North American Capacity

19

Insurance Company (“NAIC”) has refused to produce the document on various grounds, including

20

privilege, privacy, and the work product doctrine. Having considered the parties’ joint discovery

21

letter brief, as well as the oral argument of counsel, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion

22

compelling production.

23

This Court set the non-expert discovery cut-off for August 22, 2013. See Docket No. 20

24

(Case Management Scheduling Order). The parties filed their joint discovery letter brief addressing

25

the need to compel production of the document at issue on September 9, 2013. Thus, the deadline

26

for moving to compel production of written discovery has expired on August 29, seven days after

27

the discovery cut-off. See N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 37-3. Nonetheless, discovery requests made past the

28

discovery cut-off are enforceable upon a showing of good cause. See id.

1

The Court finds that, on the facts at bar, there is good cause to compel production of the

2

document at issue. Here, counsel for NAIC failed to establish facts demonstrating any applicable

3

privilege or other legal basis that would bar production of a single document. NAIC’s inability to

4

make such a showing is apparent in both the parties’ joint discovery letter brief and during a

5

subsequent hearing with court staff held on September 13. Counsel for NAIC concedes that Plaintiff

6

had made a similar document request for the document now at issue before the discovery cut-off.

7

See Docket No. 42 (Joint Discovery Letter Brief, at pg. 4) (“[P]laintiffs, by proper request for

8

production of documents, sought the exact same documents in June 2013,” referring to Plaintiff

9

request for “[a]ll of NAC’s claims handling manuals in effect between 2001 and the date hereof.”).
In addition, Plaintiff contends that they were unaware of the specific document at issue until Mr.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Walleston’s deposition on September 9. See id. at pg. 1, n. 1. Accordingly, on these facts, Plaintiff

12

has shown good cause requiring production of the document at issue, notwithstanding the issue of

13

untimeliness. Nor has NAIC established any prejudice resulting from the production.

14
15
16

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby orders NAIC to produce the document titled
“Construction Defect Claim Handling Expectations” within three (3) days of this Order.
This order disposes of Docket No. 42.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20

Dated: September 17, 2013

21

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2