City of Sterling Heights General Employees Retirement System v. Prudential Financial Inc.

Filing 17

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH by Hon. William Alsup granting 1 Motion to Quash. The Clerk shall close the file.(whalc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/19/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

CITY OF STERLING HEIGHTS
GENERAL EMPLOYEES’
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

12
13

No. C 14-80161 WHA

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER GRANTING
MOTION TO QUASH

14

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC., et al.,

15

Defendants.
/

16
17

INTRODUCTION

18

In this miscellaneous action, a non-party in the underlying action moves to quash

19

subpoenas for the production of documents and a deposition witness. For the reasons stated

20

below, the motion is GRANTED.

21
22

STATEMENT
A putative class action alleging violations of federal securities laws is currently pending

23

before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. City of Sterling Heights

24

General Employees’ Retirement System v. Prudential Financial, Inc., No. 12-cv-05275 (D.N.J.).

25

According to plaintiffs (Opp. 2):

26
27
28

In short, the complaint [in the underlying action] alleges that
[defendant] Prudential, over decades, knowingly ignored
policyholder deaths to avoid paying beneficiaries and escheating
unclaimed property to the states and thereby materially
misrepresented its financial condition, understating its reserves and
overstating its earnings per share.

1

The action follows a 2011 multi-state “market conduct examination,” which sought to

2

investigate whether Prudential was in violation of state claims settlement laws (O’Connell Decl.

3

¶ 2). The “basis for the violation” was that “insurers were using the United States Social

4

Security Administration Death Master File (SSA-DMF) to determine when annuitants were

5

deceased and terminating benefits” but were not “symmetrically using the SSA-DMF to

6

determine when life insurance policyholders had died and seeking to settle life insurance claims

7

with the deceased policyholders’ beneficiaries” (O’Connell Decl. ¶ 4). The multi-state

8

examination was organized by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, which is

9

“the U.S. standard-setting and regulatory support organization created and governed by the chief
insurance regulators” of the various states (O’Connell Decl. ¶ 6; Noonan Decl. ¶ 2).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Pennsylvania was designated as the “managing lead state” in the multi-state examination, and

12

was joined by California, Florida, Illinois, New Hampshire, and North Dakota (O’Connell Decl.

13

¶ 6).

14

As part of the examination, Prudential produced numerous documents to the examiners

15

(O’Connell Decl. ¶ 7). Eventually, Prudential offered to enter into a settlement, which became

16

effective on April 15, 2012 (O’Connell Decl. ¶ 9). Over fifty states and territories within the

17

United States have joined the settlement, including California.

18

On April 3, 2014, plaintiffs served non-party California Department of Insurance

19

(“Department”) with a document subpoena, seeking discovery related to the multi-state

20

examination (Lew Decl., Exh. B at 12). On May 6, 2014, plaintiffs served the Department with a

21

deposition subpoena, seeking testimony by a knowledgeable person on the same matters (Lew

22

Decl., Exh. D). In its motion to quash, the Department claims that plaintiffs are seeking the

23

same documents and information from Prudential itself (Br. 15). In their opposition, plaintiffs

24

notably ignore this argument (Opp. 15–16). In addition, plaintiffs are currently pursuing the

25

same documents and information from the Pennsylvania Insurance Department, the Florida

26

Office of Insurance Regulation, and the California Controller (Lew Decl., Exhs. E, F, G, H, I, J

27

& K). Plaintiffs have indicated that they may seek the same discovery from the Illinois

28
2

1

Department of Insurance, the New Hampshire Department of Insurance, the North Dakota

2

Insurance Department, and dozens of other state agencies (Lew Decl., Exh. L).

3

The Department now moves to quash the subpoenas, claiming in part that plaintiffs’

4

discovery demands are unreasonably duplicative and overly burdensome. This order follows full

5

briefing and oral argument.

6

ANALYSIS

7

Under FRCP 26(b)(2)(C)(i), a court may limit discovery if “the discovery sought is

8

unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that is more

9

convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.” Such is the case here. The Department claims
that all of the relevant documents and information it currently possesses were provided by

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Pennsylvania “in its role as managing lead state” (Br. 15; Reply Br. 12). Pennsylvania obtained

12

the documents from Prudential. Accordingly, the Department argues that plaintiffs can obtain all

13

of the documents and information at issue directly from Prudential or Pennsylvania. In their

14

opposition, plaintiffs do not state whether they have received any relevant discovery from

15

Prudential so far. As counsel for plaintiffs admitted at the motion hearing, the only evidence in

16

the current record regarding plaintiffs’ attempt to get discovery from Prudential is a single

17

sentence in a declaration, stating, “[d]iscovery ensued thereafter” (Williams Decl. ¶ 4). This is

18

insufficient. Moreover, plaintiffs do not identify in their opposition any documents or

19

information that cannot be acquired directly from Prudential or any of the other individual

20

defendants in the underlying action. Plaintiffs’ fishing expedition of seeking duplicative

21

documents and information from various state agencies across the country is not justified by the

22

present record and is overly burdensome to the Department. Accordingly, the motion to quash is

23

GRANTED. It is unnecessary to reach the further issues concerning confidentiality and privilege

24

raised by the Department at this time.

25
26

CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the motion to quash is GRANTED. If Judge Wigenton finds

27

in the underlying action that plaintiffs are entitled to evidence but Prudential no longer has the

28

evidence or stonewalls production of the evidence, then the Court may consider enforcing a fresh
3

1

subpoena (but will also then consider the Department’s further concern about confidentiality).

2

The Department should ensure that it keeps and maintains all documents relevant to the

3

underlying action.

4

This case is over. The Clerk SHALL CLOSE THE FILE.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: June 19, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4