Kaufman & Broad Monterey Bay et al v. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America

Filing 250

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 165 Discovery Dispute Joint Report #6. Plaintiffs' request for discovery is denied.(hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2013)

1
2

*E-FILED: January 2, 2013*

3
4
5
6
NOT FOR CITATION

8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

7

12

KAUFMAN & BROAD MONTEREY BAY, a
California corporation; KB HOME SOUTH
BAY, INC., a California corporation,

13

No. C10-02856 EJD (HRL)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT #6

Plaintiffs,
v.

14

[Re: Docket No. 165]

15

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA,

16

Defendant.

17

TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA,

/
18
Counterclaimant,
19
20
21
22

v.
KAUFMAN & BROAD MONTEREY BAY, a
California corporation; KB HOME SOUTH
BAY, INC., a California corporation,
Counterdefendants.
/

23
24

In Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) #6, plaintiffs move for an order compelling

25

defendant Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers) to produce documents

26

responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 107, 108, 110, and 111. The matter is deemed

27

suitable for determination without oral argument. CIV. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the

28

parties’ respective positions, this court denies plaintiffs’ request for discovery.

Request Nos. 107 and 110 seek correspondence between Travelers and Norcraft

1
2

Companies (Norcraft) re the Aldrich Action, as well as documents related to the settlement

3

between Norcraft and the Aldrich plaintiffs. After plaintiffs initiated DDJR #6, Travelers says

4

that it served supplemental responses to these requests, stating that it has produced “all non-

5

privileged or non-protected documents responsive to this request presently within its

6

possession, custody, or control.”1 (Dkt. No. 165, DDJR #6 at p. 8). On the record presented, it

7

is not clear what, if anything, remains to be produced in response to these requests. Plaintiffs’

8

request to compel further discovery therefore is denied as moot.

9

As for Request No. 108 (“All documents showing the amount of defense fees and costs
You have paid to defend Norcraft in the Aldrich Action”) and Request No. 111 (“All documents

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

(other than documents involving attorney-client communications and which constitute attorney

12

work product) related to Your efforts to obtain a settlement between Norcraft and the Plaintiffs

13

in the Aldrich Action.”), plaintiffs have not convincingly demonstrated that the requested

14

information is relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

15

FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Additionally, the court finds that the likely benefit (if any) of the

16

information sought is outweighed by the burden and expense that would be imposed. FED. R.

17

CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Plaintiffs’ request to compel discovery in response to these requests is

18

denied.

19

SO ORDERED.

20

Dated: January 2, 2013

21
HOWARD R. LLOYD
22

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28

This court assumes that Travelers’ supplemental responses drop the objections
that this court rejected in its June 2, 2011 discovery order (Dkt. No. 70).
1

2

1

5:10-cv-02856-EJD Notice has been electronically mailed to:

2

A. Eric Aguilera [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

3
Bonnie Tara Roadarmel

[e-mail]

4
Caroline Elizabeth Siefert

[e-mail]

5
Chanmaly Kendie Schlecht

[e-mail]

6
James Stephen Hultz

[e-mail]

7
8

Kari Marie Myron [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

9

Raymond Earl Brown

[e-mail]

Rondi Jan Walsh

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Thomas Lether [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

[e-mail]

12
13

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not
registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3