Century Aluminum Company et al v. AGCS Marine Insurance Co.

Filing 88

ORDER re Discovery Disputes 65 , 84 . Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 04/04/12. (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/4/2012)

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 EMC (NC)

Plaintiffs,
ORDER RE: DISCOVERY
DISPUTES

12
13

v.
Re: Dkt. Nos. 65, 84
AGCS MARINE INSURANCE CO.,

14

Defendant.

15
16
17
18

The parties submitted joint letter briefs concerning their continued disputes as to

19

Century/Nordural’s responses to document request Nos. 28, 37, and 40-59, Dkt. No. 65,

20

and responses to interrogatory request Nos. 10 and 12, Dkt. No. 84.1 The parties

21

attended a discovery conference on May 4, 2012. After considering the representations

22

made by the parties at the conference and the parties’ joint letter briefs, Dkt. Nos. 65 and

23

84, the Court orders as follows:

24

Interrogatories

25

In their most recent letter brief to the Court, Dkt. No. 84, the parties raise

26
27
28

1

While AGCS asserts that it seeks further documents from Century/Nordural in response
to document request No. 58, it fails to address the request in the parties’ joint letter brief. See
Dkt. No. 65. Accordingly, AGCS’s motion to compel further documents in response to request
No. 58 is DENIED.
Case No. 11-cv-02514 YGR (NC)
Order re: Discovery Disputes

1

additional disputes relating to Century/Nordural’s responses to interrogatories Nos. 10

2

and 12. Through these interrogatories AGCS seeks information regarding

3

Century/Nordural’s property damage and consequential damage claims. As

4

Century/Nordural asserts in the joint letter brief “Century has identified all unique

5

responsive documents, subject of course to its right to amend the responses if documents

6

were inadvertently omitted or are subsequently discovered.” Dkt. No. 84 at 3. The

7

Court finds Century/Nordural’s responses to be sufficient with one exception.

8

Century/Nordural is to delete the “see, e.g.” reference from its interrogatory responses.

9

Century/Nordural is to serve on AGCS its verified supplemental responses to

10

interrogatories Nos. 10 and 12 within 30 days of the filing date of this order.
Document Requests

11
12

1.

Discovery Concerning All Insurance for Transformer #11

13

AGCS request for production No. 28 seeks all documents pertaining to the

14

solicitation, procurement, negotiation, placement, and/or underwriting of any insurance

15

by plaintiffs for Transformer #11 since 1998. Century/Nordural previously produced all

16

documents relating to the insurance policy at issue, and all other policies that covered

17

Transformer #11 for any risk at the time of loss, and insurance purchased to replace the

18

AGCS policy. The Court finds that requests for other insurance policies procured for

19

Transformer #11 dating back to 1998 are not relevant and are not reasonably calculated

20

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Accordingly, AGCS’s request for

21

insurance policies and documents pertaining to solicitation, procurement, negotiation,

22

placement, and/or underwriting of those policies beyond documents already produced by

23

Century/Nordural is DENIED.

24

2.

Discovery Concerning “Business Interruption” Claims

25

A. Temporal Scope

26

AGCS moves to compel further responses to request Nos. 37, 40-46, 49-54 and 57

27

relating to the alleged “business interruption” incurred by plaintiffs as a result of the loss

28

of planned use of Transformer #11. The Court agrees with Century/Nordural that a
Case No. 11-cv-02514 YGR (NC)
Order re: Discovery Disputes
2

1

temporal limit of July 1, 2009, one year prior to the alleged “business interruption,”

2

through July 1, 2011, one year following, is proper. Documents from this two-year time

3

period are sufficient for AGCS to compare production prior and subsequent to the

4

alleged business interruption. Accordingly, AGCS’s motion to compel further responses

5

to document request Nos. 37, 40-46, 49-54 and 57 is DENIED to the extent AGCS seeks

6

additional documents from before July 1, 2009 or after July 1, 2011.

7

B. Hawesville and Ravenswood Plants

8

AGCS requests documents concerning schematics, inventory positions, and

9

financial documents of Century’s Hawesville, Kentucky and Ravenswood, West Virginia

10

plants. The Court agrees with Century/Nordural that these requests are overly broad and

11

unduly burdensome. The Hawesville and Ravenswood plants are not involved in this

12

case and AGCS has failed to meet its burden to establish relevance of information

13

pertaining to separate plants outfitted to make different products than those made at

14

Nordural. Century/Nordural has offered to provide a declaration from Century’s risk

15

manager, Virginia Lawson, explaining why such production replacement would have

16

been impossible or economically infeasible. See Dkt. No. 65 at 5. AGCS document

17

requests seeking additional information regarding the Hawesville and Ravenswood

18

plants are DENIED subject to Century/Nordural’s production of Ms. Lawson’s

19

declaration. Century/Nordural is ordered to submit Ms. Lawson’s declaration to AGCS

20

within 14 days of the filing date of this order.

21

3.

22

Discovery Concerning Plant Schmatics and Inventory Position
AGCS requests for production Nos. 47 and 48 seek documents concerning plant

23

schematics and inventory position for Century’s Grundartangi, Hawesville, and

24

Ravenswood plants. The Court understands that Century/Nordural previously provided

25

the requested information as to the Grundartangi plant. To the extent the requests seek

26

information regarding the Hawesville and Ravenswood plants, they are overly broad and

27

unduly burdensome and are DENIED subject to Century/Nordural’s production of Ms.

28

Lawson’s declaration.
Case No. 11-cv-02514 YGR (NC)
Order re: Discovery Disputes
3

1

4.

Discovery Concerning Maintenance of Other Transformers
AGCS request No. 55 seeks documents concerning the historical maintenance of

2
3

transformers at the Grundartangi plant dating back to 1998. This request, to the extent it

4

does not concern maintenance to Transformer #11, is overly broad and unduly

5

burdensome. AGCS asserts relevance exists as to the issue of “damage to the

6

transformers in general and Plaintiff’s business interruption claim.” Dkt. No. 65 at 2.

7

Whether or not there were problems with other transformers and whether these

8

transformers were properly maintained is not at issue here, however, as this case

9

concerns only damages sustained by Transformer # 11 in ocean transit. This request also

10

lacks in relevance as to Century/Nordural’s business interruption claim. For these

11

reasons, the Court DENIES AGCS’s document request No. 55 seeking additional

12

documents concerning maintenance of other transformers.

13

5. Discovery Concerning Nordural’s Financial Information/Capital Expenditures
Regarding Century/Nordural’s responses to document request No. 56, AGCS’s

14
15

motion to compel further responses is DENIED. Century/Nordural previously produced

16

more than 30,000 pages of information regarding Nordural’s financial profile from July

17

1, 2009 through July 1, 2011. The Court agrees that the information provided for one

18

year prior to the business income loss to one year following the loss is sufficient for

19

AGCS to evaluate Nordural’s financial information and capital expenditures during the

20

period of the business income loss.

21

///

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-02514 YGR (NC)
Order re: Discovery Disputes
4

1

6. Discovery Concerning Electrical Disturbances

2

AGCS request No. 59 seeks documents relating to the “electrical disturbances”

3

that occurred at the Grundartangi plant on or about September 1 and 9, 2010. AGCS’s

4

motion to compel this category of documents is DENIED as moot. Century/Nordural

5

represented that it previously provided supplemental responses to this request.

6
7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

DATED: April 4, 2012
____________________________
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS
United States Magistrate Judge

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 11-cv-02514 YGR (NC)
Order re: Discovery Disputes

5