Century Aluminum Company et al v. AGCS Marine Insurance Co.
Filing
206
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 180 MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER DISCOVERY RESPONSES. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 08/23/2012. (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/23/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
9
10
CENTURY ALUMINUM COMPANY, et al.,
11
Case No. 11-cv-02514 YGR (NC)
Plaintiffs,
12
13
v.
AGCS MARINE INSURANCE CO.,
14
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
MOTION TO COMPEL
FURTHER DISCOVERY
RESPONSES
Re: Dkt. No. 180
Defendant.
15
16
17
Century moves to compel AGCS to provide further responses to Century’s third
18
set of interrogatories and third and fourth requests for the production of documents. Dkt.
19
No. 180. AGCS opposes the motion asserting that the documents and information
20
Century now requests were the subject of previous discovery requests and that Century is
21
seeking a “second bite of the apple.”
22
As an initial matter, the Court found that AGCS and Century had yet to meet and
23
confer sufficiently regarding this discovery dispute and ordered them to do so in advance
24
of the hearing. Dkt. No. 203. The Court then held a hearing on the motion to compel on
25
August 22, 2012.
26
Finding that certain discovery requests are relevant and not unduly burdensome,
27
the Court GRANTS Century’s motion to compel further responses to Century’s third
28
request for production Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and to Century’s fourth request for production
Case No. 11-cv-02514 YGR (NC)
ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL
1
of documents Nos. 4, 5, and 6, with certain limitations as set forth in this order. The
2
Court denies Century’s motion for further responses to interrogatory Nos. 10, 11, 14, and
3
15 and grants Century’s motion for further responses to interrogatory Nos. 12, 13, 16,
4
and 17, again with certain limitations set forth below. Accordingly, Century’s motion to
5
compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I. BACKGROUND
6
7
Century seeks to compel further responses to its third set of interrogatory request
8
Nos. 10, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17, its third request for production Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4, and its
9
fourth request for production Nos. 4, 5, and 6. Joint Letter Brief at 1, Dkt. No. 180.
10
Century asserts that AGCS has not substantively responded to these interrogatories and
11
has refused to produce any documents in response to Century’s third request for
12
production other than a single “sample” AGCS marine cargo policy. Id. at 1-2. Finally,
13
Century alleges that AGCS has produced no documents in response to Century’s fourth
14
request for production. Id. at 2.
15
AGCS asserts that the documents and information that Century now seeks
16
through these interrogatory and document requests were the subject of previous
17
discovery requests by Century that resulted in a joint letter brief to the Court, Dkt. No.
18
57, and an order by the Court limiting such discovery, Dkt. No. 64. See Joint Letter
19
Brief at 3.
20
In the referenced order, the Court limited Century’s discovery requests for “other
21
claims” and “other insured” materials to: “(1) ocean marine (not inland) cargo claims
22
that AGCS denied from January 1, 2009 to the present, based on either (a) a conclusion
23
that the packing of the cargo was insufficient to withstand the intended voyage, or (b)
24
sea conditions that AGCS concluded were not so severe to have caused the loss; and (2)
25
ocean marine (not inland) cargo claims that AGCS accepted or paid from January 1,
26
2009 to the present, involving sea conditions less severe than level 7 on the Beaufort
27
Scale; and (3) ocean marine cargo insurance policies provided by AGCS to ABB Group,
28
and communications between AGCS and ABB Group concerning those policies during
Case No. 11-cv-02514 YGR (NC)
ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL
2
1
the time period January 1, 2009, to present.” Order, Dkt. No. 64. AGCS contends that
2
Century now seeks to expand discovery beyond the Court’s order to other Allianz
3
companies, to assureds other than ABB, non-ocean marine movements, and a time period
4
prior to January 1, 2009. Joint Letter Brief at 3.
II. DISCUSSION
5
6
A. Interrogatories
7
1. Century’s Third Set of Interrogatories Nos. 10, 11, 14, and 15
8
Through interrogatory Nos. 10 and 14, Century seeks information regarding
9
AGCS’ use of the phrase “‘sufficiently packed to withstand the intended voyage’ or any
10
similar phrase.” Joint Letter Brief at 1. AGCS responded that it has found no instance
11
where it restates the phrase “sufficiently packed to withstand the intended voyage.” Id.
12
AGCS further responds that “to search for several specific or ‘similar’ words in such
13
policies covering specific commodities would be a gargantuan task.” Id. at 4.
14
The Court finds that Century’s interrogatory request as it stands is vague and
15
unduly burdensome in requiring AGCS to determine what are “similar words.” AGCS is
16
ordered to verify its response that no such AGCS policies exist for the time period
17
January 1, 2009 to the present that contain the phrase “sufficiently packed to withstand
18
the intended voyage.” Otherwise, Century’s request for further response to interrogatory
19
Nos. 10 and 14 is denied. To the extent that interrogatory Nos. 11 and 15 depend on
20
responses to Nos. 10 and 14, Century’s request for further responses is denied.
21
2. Century’s Third Set of Interrogatories Nos. 12 and 16
22
Through interrogatory Nos. 12 and 16, Century seeks information regarding
23
AGCS’ use of the phrase “‘sufficiently packed to withstand the intended voyage” where
24
the policy covers the shipment of a transformer or transformers, or a large piece of
25
industrial electrical equipment. Joint Letter Brief at 1.
26
The Court grants the request, subject to the same limitations as stated in its
27
previous order, Dkt. No. 64, including that AGCS’ response is limited to AGCS policies
28
that involve ocean marine movements (as opposed to inland movement) of transformers,
Case No. 11-cv-02514 YGR (NC)
ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL
3
1
not other large piece of industrial electrical equipment. The Court also limits the
2
applicable time frame as set forth in the Court’s previous order from January 1, 2009, to
3
present.
4
3. Century’s Third Set of Interrogatories Nos. 13 and 17
5
Century interrogatory Nos. 13 and 17 seek information about insurance policies
6
identified in other interrogatory responses. Joint Letter Brief at 1. AGCS refuses to
7
respond to these interrogatories, asserting that the Court’s prior order relieves AGCS of
8
any obligation to respond. See id.
The Court finds that to the extent responsive policies are identified in AGCS’
9
10
response to other interrogatories, subject to the Court’s limitations on these responses,
11
AGCS must produce information about such policies.
12
B. Document Requests
13
1. Century’s Third Request for Production Nos. 1 and 2
14
Requests for production Nos. 1 and 2 seek documents relating to two ABB
15
transformer damage claims submitted to AGCS that AGCS transformer expert
16
Oppermann testified he handled. Joint Letter Brief at 2. Century asserts that these
17
documents are highly relevant to Oppermann’s opinions in this case. Id. AGCS
18
responds that Century through these requests seeks claims files of “other Allianz
19
companies . . . involving losses in Canada and Spain, under policies issued by other
20
Allianz companies, involving neither plaintiff nor ABB.” Id. at 4-5.
The Court finds that the limitations set forth in its previous order, Dkt. No. 64, do
21
22
not apply to requests for production Nos. 1 and 2 for the following reasons. First, the
23
requests are limited to two damage claims and thus are readily retrievable and therefore
24
not unduly burdensome. Second, the claims files, though of other Allianz companies,
25
may be relevant as they connect to Oppermann’s opinions, which are relevant to
26
Century’s bad faith case. Accordingly, the Court orders AGCS to produce these
27
categories of documents.
28
//
Case No. 11-cv-02514 YGR (NC)
ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL
4
1
2. Century’s Third Request for Production Nos. 3 and 4
2
Century’s requests for production Nos. 3 and 4 seek documents relating to
3
“claims for transformer damages or damages to a large piece of industrial electrical
4
equipment,” and the insurance policies covering the shipments of such items. Joint
5
Letter Brief at 2. AGCS objects that these requests are unduly burdensome and
6
irrelevant. Joint Letter Brief at 4.
7
The Court finds that the limitations set forth in its previous order, Dkt. No. 64,
8
apply to these requests to limit AGCS’ response to claims that involve ocean marine
9
movements (as opposed to inland movement) of transformers not other large piece of
10
industrial electrical equipment. The time frame set forth in the Court’s previous order,
11
January 1, 2009, to present is to apply here as well.
12
3. Century’s Fourth Request for Production No. 1
13
Century seeks the time and billing records of surveyors and contractors, including
14
Oppermann, Crawford & Co., Det Norske Veritas, Bob Cohen, and BMT, that AGCS
15
retained to assist in the investigation of this claim. Joint Letter Brief at 2. Specifically,
16
Century seeks the records for Olaf Oppermann and other experts engaged by AGCS to
17
investigate the transformer damage claim. Id. Century contends that the Oppermann
18
files are relevant because the work he conducted is relevant to Century’s bad faith case.
19
Id. AGCS responds that it has already produced “part of their files” but that it has not
20
produced all information as “there was no specific request for such information until at
21
or after their depositions.” See Joint Letter Brief at 5.
22
The Court finds that the requests for billing records are relevant and not unduly
23
burdensome. Accordingly, the Court orders AGCS to produce the time and billing
24
records of surveyors and contractors that AGCS retained to assist in the investigation.
25
4. Century’s Fourth Request for Production Nos. 5 and 6
26
Through these requests, Century seeks documents relating to AGCS’ development
27
and use of a joint AGCS-ABB “Transformer Risk Control Notification Form,” which
28
references the securing of “internals of a return transformer.” Joint Letter Brief at 2.
Case No. 11-cv-02514 YGR (NC)
ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL
5
1
AGCS has produced the form but now objects to producing follow-up documents and
2
communications regarding AGCS’ use of the form as being outside the scope of this
3
Court’s previous discovery order limiting “other claims” discovery to AGCS ABB
4
ocean marine policies concerning ocean marine movement of transformers from January
5
1, 2009. See Dkt. No. 64.
6
The Court agrees that AGCS’ objections do not apply to the development of the
7
form and that if AGCS contends that no documents regarding the development of the
8
form are found, it must verify that contention in response. As for use of the form, the
9
Court again limits AGCS’ response to transformers involved in ocean marine movement
10
from January 1, 2009 to the present.
11
III. ORDER
12
For the reasons discussed above, Century’s motion for further responses to
13
interrogatories and document requests is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
14
AGCS must provide verified responses to interrogatories and produce responsive
15
documents to the subject requests in accordance with this order on or before September
16
14, 2012.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
DATED: August 23, 2012
____________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-02514 YGR (NC)
ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL
6
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?