Goertzen v. Great American Life Insurance Company

Filing 68

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER; REFERRING PRIVILEGE DISPUTE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE, ORDER REFERRING to Magistrate Judge for Discovery purposes, ORDER REFERRING MOTION: re Documents withheld on grounds of privilege in 65 Joint Discovery Letter Brief and Attachment filed by Joyce Goertzen. Signed by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on 8/1/17. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/1/2017)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

JOYCE GOERTZEN,

Case No. 16-cv-240-YGR

Plaintiff,
6
v.
7
8
9
10

GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

ORDER RE: DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER;
REFERRING PRIVILEGE DISPUTE TO
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Re: Dkt. No. 65

Defendant.
Currently pending before the Court is the parties’ joint discovery dispute letter. (Dkt. No.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

65.) Plaintiff Joyce Goertzen seeks further responses to two sets of discovery: (1) answers to

12

Plaintiffs Special Interrogatories 3 and 4; and (2) documents responsive to plaintiff’s requests for

13

documents withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege by defendant Great American Life

14

Insurance Co. Inc. The Court ORDERS as follows:

15

(1) The Court OVERRULES defendant’s objection based upon California Insurance Code

16

791.3. See Irvington-Moore, Inc. v. Superior Court, 14 Cal. App. 4th 733, 741 (1993) (Cal. Ins.

17

Code § 791 et seq. does not create a privilege against discovery in litigation); Colonial Life &

18

Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. 3d 785, 792 (1982) (“Without doubt, the discovery of

19

the names, addresses and files of other Colonial claimants with whom Sharkey attempted

20

settlements is relevant to the subject matter of this action and may lead to admissible evidence.”)

21

Upon certification of a class herein, plaintiff will be entitled to such information about

22

members of the class. Prior to class certification, defendant will only be permitted to withhold this

23

information about putative class members if it will not contest class certification by raising

24

arguments or presenting individualized evidence that putative class members’ reliance creates

25

significant individual issues precluding certification. Otherwise, defendant shall provide

26

substantive responses to the interrogatories, as subsequently limited by plaintiff, no later than

27

AUGUST 10, 2017.

28

(2) As to the documents withheld on grounds of privilege described in Docket No. 65,

1

pursuant to Local Rule 72-1, this dispute is REFERRED to a Magistrate Judge for resolution. The

2

Magistrate Judge to whom the matter is assigned will advise the parties of how the matter will

3

proceed. The Magistrate Judge may issue a ruling, order additional briefing, or set a telephone

4

conference or a hearing.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 1, 2017
______________________________________
YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

7
8
9

cc: MagRef Email; Assigned Magistrate Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2