Mayer Hoffman McCann, PC v. CAMICO Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 74

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY 71 72 . (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/29/2016)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

MAYER HOFFMAN MCCANN, P.C.,

Case No. 15-cv-01207-SI

Plaintiff,
9
v.

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

CAMICO MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 71, 72, 73

Defendant.

13
14

The Court has received several letters from the parties regarding a discovery dispute. The

15

Court notes that notwithstanding the Clerk’s September 21, 2016 reminder to counsel of the

16

Court’s standing order regarding discovery disputes, the parties proceeded to file separate letters,

17

each accusing the other side of a failure to cooperate regarding the filing of a joint statement. The

18

parties are instructed that they must comply with the standing order with regard to any future

19

discovery disputes.

20

CAMICO’s September 23, 2016 letter seeks an order directing MHM to provide

21

supplemental discovery responses and to produce responsive documents. The parties’ letters refer

22

to a compromise reached during the meet and confer process by which CAMICO agreed to

23

remove MHM’s lawyers from the definition of “YOU” in the document requests, and to limit the

24

time period covered to documents concerning the negotiation, placement, binding, and drafting of

25

the reinstatement provision contained in the 2007-2008 policy. It is unclear from the parties’

26

separate letters exactly why this compromise agreement fell apart.

27

In any event, the Court finds that these limitations on CAMICO’s document requests are

28

reasonable, and orders MHM to provide responsive documents subject to these limitations no later

1

than October 7, 2016. If, as MHM asserts in its letter brief, CAMICO was nevertheless insisting

2

that MHM provide a privilege log (including regarding documents generated after litigation

3

ensued, and including between MHM and its counsel, which would be beyond the scope of the

4

original request), the Court finds that CAMICO has not shown why, given the Court’s disposition

5

of this dispute, such a privilege log is necessary or reasonable.

6

MHM’s September 26, 2016 letter asserts that CAMICO has issued deposition notices

7

without first conferring with counsel to clear the deposition dates. As the parties filed separate

8

letters, it is unclear what CAMICO’s response is with regard to this assertion. Counsel are

9

directed to cooperate regarding the scheduling of all future deposition dates.
Finally, CAMICO’s letter states that “MHM’s responses to the special interrogatories are

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

evasive and nonresponsive and CAMICO deserves straightforward answers.” Dkt. No. 72 at 2.

12

CAMICO does not explain how MHM’s responses are inadequate, and MHM does not respond to

13

CAMICO’s assertion. On this record, the Court does not find that this matter has been adequately

14

presented to this Court for resolution. If the parties are unable to resolve any disputes regarding

15

MHM’s responses to special interrogatories, counsel shall comply with the standing order and file

16

a joint letter brief regarding the matter.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21
22

Dated: September 29, 2016
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2