ILWU-PMA Welfare Plan Board of Trustees et al v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 118

ORDER RE 115 PLAINTIFFS' DISCOVERY DISPUTE by Hon. William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/22/2017)

Download PDF
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 ILWU-PMA WELFARE PLAN BOARD OF TRUSTEES and ILWU-PMA WELFARE PLAN, 12 13 14 15 16 17 No. C 15-02965 WHA Plaintiffs, v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY; and CAREWISE HEALTH, INC., f/k/a SHPS HEALTH MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, INC., ORDER RE PLAINTIFFS’ DISCOVERY DISPUTE Defendants. 18 / 19 By letter dated February 17, plaintiffs ILWU-PMA Welfare Plan Board of Trustees and 20 21 ILWU-PMA Welfare Plan request leave to brief the results of supplemental discovery taken 22 pursuant to the Court’s prior order granting in part plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions against 23 defendant Carewise Health, Inc. (Dkt. Nos. 110, 115 at 1–2). Carewise does not oppose this 24 request (Dkt. No. 117 at 3). This order therefore GRANTS leave for each side to submit a 25 supplemental brief by MARCH 16 AT NOON. Each supplemental brief shall not exceed SEVEN 26 27 28 PAGES in length or include more than 25 PAGES of attachments. Plaintiffs, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e), also seek to compel Carewise to supplement its prior responses to certain interrogatories and requests for admission (Dkt. No. 115 at 2). Rule 26(e), however, requires a party to supplement discovery responses only if “the 1 additional or corrective information has not otherwise been made known to the other parties 2 during the discovery process or in writing” (or if otherwise ordered by the Court). Oracle Am., 3 Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10-03561 WHA, 2016 WL 5393938, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2016). 4 It does not require such supplementation based on “information eventually disclosed by 5 [Carewise] in response to Plaintiffs’ motion for spoliation sanctions” or “information learned 6 through the recent depositions” (see Dkt. No. 115 at 2). At best, this request is premature 7 because supplemental discovery remains ongoing. As such, it is DENIED. 8 9 Finally, plaintiffs request leave to serve additional written discovery upon Carewise, complaining that Carewise has “resisted Plaintiffs’ informal requests for information and documents” (which Attorney Nicole Teixeira for plaintiffs emailed to defense counsel) (ibid.). 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Carewise states in its response that it “does not object to providing responses to the two 12 interrogatories stated in Ms. Teixeira’s January 25, 2017 email, and to providing the documents 13 requested therein . . . by the requested March 10, 2017 date” (Dkt. No. 117 at 3). Since the 14 parties seem to be in agreement on this issue, plaintiffs’ request is DENIED. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: February 22, 2017. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?