Hunt v. Continental Casualty Company

Filing 120

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu denying 82 Discovery Letter Brief; granting in part and denying in part 83 Discovery Letter Brief; granting 99 Discovery Letter Brief; granting in part and denying in part 112 Discovery Letter Brief. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/29/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SUSAN HUNT,

Case No. 13-cv-05966-HSG (DMR)

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER ON JOINT DISCOVERY
LETTERS

9
10

CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 82, 83, 99, 112

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
Plaintiff Susan Hunt and Defendant Continental Casualty Company (“CNA”) filed joint

12
13

discovery letters on April 21, 2015, May 8, 2015, and May 21, 2015 in which the parties each

14

moved to compel further responses to discovery. [Docket Nos. 82 (Letter re Attorneys’ Fees), 83

15

(Letter re Mitigation), 99 (May 8, 2015 Letter), 112 (Letter re ESI).] The court conducted a

16

hearing on May 28, 2015. This order memorializes the rulings made on the record at the hearing.

17

A.

Docket No. 82 (Information re Attorneys’ Fees)
The court has reviewed Dr. McNeal’s deposition testimony and what appear to be Dr.

18
19

McNeal’s weekly treatment notes over a two-year period of time. Since the notes contain only

20

two isolated references to the attorneys’ fees Plaintiff has incurred in connection with this

21

litigation, the court finds that the notes do not support further discovery based on Defendant’s

22

claim that the cost of this lawsuit is a significant factor contributing to Plaintiff’s emotional

23

distress. Defendant’s motion to compel is denied.

24

B.

Docket No. 83 (Mitigation-Related Documents)

25

Plaintiff did not establish that she acted with sufficient diligence in searching for and

26

producing responsive mitigation documents. This resulted in the production of a significant

27

number of documents after the date of her second deposition session on February 24, 2015.

28

Defendant was not able to question Plaintiff about the documents, and the documents were not

1

available for review by Defendant’s expert. Therefore, Plaintiff is precluded from relying on any

2

documents responsive to RFP 101 (mitigation-related documents) that she produced after February

3

24, 2015 but only to the extent that they pertain to events before February 24, 2015. Plaintiff is

4

also precluded from relying on testimony regarding such documents.

5

C.

Defendant’s response to interrogatory No. 21 is insufficient. Defendant shall amend its

6
7

Docket No. 99 (Response to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory & RFA)

response to interrogatory No. 21 to provide a full, complete response.
RFA 19 asks Defendant to “[a]dmit that the financial performance of the San Francisco

9

branch declined in 2013 after Plaintiff Susan Hunt left her position as Branch Vice President.”

10

Plaintiff has amended the RFA to replace the term “financial performance” with “profitability.”

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

According to Plaintiff, numerous defense witnesses have testified that they consider the

12

“profitability” of individual branches in making various decisions; Defendant did not dispute this.

13

Therefore, Defendant shall provide a response to amended RFA 19 that complies with Federal

14

Rule of Civil Procedure 36. If the matter is not admitted, Defendant’s “answer must specifically

15

deny it or state in detail why the answering party cannot truthfully admit or deny it.” Fed. R. Civ.

16

P. 36(a)(4).
Defendant’s amended responses to interrogatory No. 21 and RFA 19 shall be served within

17
18

five days of the date of this order.

19

D.

20

Docket No. 112 (Dispute re ESI)
Defendant created a list of proposed search terms which it provided to Plaintiff in

21

December 2014 and invited discussion about them. Plaintiff chose not to engage in that

22

discussion, and instead responded with its own search terms in January 2015. Many of Plaintiff’s

23

search terms are patently overbroad (e.g., a proposed search for “Susan” or “Hunt” in the custodial

24

files of national level managers). Although the court gave Plaintiff the opportunity to propose

25

more tailored searches, Plaintiff declined. The court reviewed the search terms run by Defendant

26

and finds them to be generally reasonable. Therefore, Defendant shall run the searches it proposed

27

for search groups 9, 12, and 15 as set forth on page three of the parties’ joint letter and produce all

28

responsive documents generated by the searches within 10 days of the date of this order.
2

6
7
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
3

FO

LI

RN

A

H

5

M. Ryu

onna
______________________________________
Judge D
Donna M. Ryu
United States Magistrate Judge
E
RT

4

Dated: May 29, 2015

NO

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

R NIA

S
UNIT
ED

2

D

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

RT
U
O

1

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C