Vu v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

Filing 52

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/12/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

TAM VU,
Plaintiff,

8

11

ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

v.

9
10

Case No. 18-cv-03594-SI

Re: Dkt. No. 51
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

The parties have submitted a discovery dispute to the Court. See Dkt. No. 51. The

14

disagreement stems from plaintiff’s request for documents from both defendants showing total water

15

loss claims and water loss denials based on “seepage and leakage” exclusion in 2016 and 2017 for

16

all counties in California. These documents are sought in connection with discovery going to

17

defendants’ alleged pattern and practice of unreasonably denying claims and showing that

18

defendants acted intentionally and with fraud, malice, and oppression. Defendants argue the

19

requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome. However, they have offered to compromise by

20

producing water loss claims brought under defendant Liberty Insurance Company’s (“LIC’s”)

21

homeowners policies adjusted by Tamara Chukes or Juan Gonzales1 in Santa Clara, San Mateo,

22

Alameda, and Santa Cruz counties in 2017 and 2018.

23

While plaintiffs are entitled to pattern and practice discovery, the Court finds that production

24

of all claims and water loss denials based on seepage and leakage, by any adjusters, for the entire

25

state of California, is too broad. Defendants’ compromise limits documents to various Bay Area

26

counties and further limits the documents to those policies adjusted by Ms. Chukes and Mr.

27
28

1

Tamara Chukes was the claims adjuster for the claim at issue and Juan Gonzales was her
supervisor at the time.

1

Gonzales. These is a reasonable start that does not prejudice or overburden defendants and upholds

2

plaintiff’s right to pattern and practice evidence. If it becomes clear after the production of this

3

group of documents that further production is needed, plaintiff may petition the Court again.

4

Plaintiff has stated that she will accept claim files and denial letters from which all identifying

5

personal information has been redacted, which obviates the need for notice to third-party insureds.

6

However, documents for 2016 must also be produced.

7

Therefore, defendants shall produce water loss claims and denial letters under LIC’s

8

homeowners policies adjusted by Tamara Chukes or Juan Gonzales in Santa Clara, San Mateo,

9

Alameda, and Santa Cruz Counties in 2016, 2017, and 2018. Defendants will redact any and all

10

private information in said production.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 12, 2019
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2