Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc. et al

Filing 108

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd re 96 Discovery Dispute Joint Report No. 1. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/28/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

NOT FOR CITATION

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Connecticut
corporation,

12
13

Plaintiff,
14

Case No. 5:12-cv-04204 EJD (HRL)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE
JOINT REPORT NO. 1
[Re: Docket No. 96]

v.
15
TAYLOR MORRISON OF CALIFORNIA,
LLC, a California limited liability
corporation, et al.,

16
17

Defendants.
18
19

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS

20
This is an insurance action arising out of litigation over alleged defective work performed

21
22

by Park West Landscape (Park West) at the Spyglass Hill condominium complex in San Jose,

23

California. Plaintiff Travelers Property Casualty Company of America (Travelers) claims that it is

24

entitled to contribution from defendant Arch Insurance Group (Arch) for the defense of Taylor

25

Morrison. 1 Travelers alleges that Arch has a duty to defend Taylor Morrison as an additional

26
27
28

1

This court uses the term “Taylor Morrison” to refer collectively to the various Taylor Morrison
entities in question, i.e., Taylor Morrison of California, LLC, Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc., and
Taylor Morrison Services, Inc.

1

insured under a policy Arch issued to Park West. Arch says that there is no coverage under that

2

policy because Park West completed its work well after that policy expired.

3

At issue in Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR) No. 1 is whether Travelers should be

4

compelled to provide further responses to Arch’s Requests for Admission (RFA) Nos. 8 and 10-12

5

and Interrogatory Nos. 14 and 23-25. The matter is deemed suitable for determination without

6

oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Upon consideration of the parties’ respective arguments, the

7

court denies Arch’s request to compel discovery.

8
9
10

A. Park West’s Work (RFA 8 and Interrogatory 14)
These requests seek the date Travelers contends Park West completed it work at the
Spyglass Hill complex:

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

RFA 8:

“Admit that Park West did not complete its work on the Project until
sometime during the 2007 calendar year.”

Interrogatory 14:

“Please state the date that You contend Park West completed its
work on the Project.”

14
15

(DDJR No. 1, Exs. A and B). In essence, Arch says that Travelers must have some basis for its

16

claim that coverage exists under the Arch policy. Travelers says that, as part of its investigation of

17

Park West’s and Taylor Morrison’s tender of defense, it received and reviewed job file materials

18

for Park West’s work on the project. Those files, says plaintiff, show when Park West started its

19

work, but do not indicate when Park West completed its work. As such, Travelers says that it

20

cannot admit or deny the subject matter of RFA No. 8 and cannot provide a substantive response

21

to Interrogatory No. 14.

22

On the record presented, this court has no basis to question Travelers’ characterization of

23

the contents of the job file materials. Nor is there any indication (at least as of the time DDJR No.

24

1 was filed) that the requested information was available to Travelers through other sources.

25

Accordingly, Arch’s request for an order compelling further responses to these requests is denied.

26

Nevertheless, Travelers is reminded of its continuing obligation to supplement its disclosures and

27

discovery responses under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

28
2

B. Wrap Policy (RFAs 10-12 and Interrogatories 23-25)

1

In its Second Amended Complaint (SAC), Travelers alleges, on information and belief, the
2
existence of a wrap policy (i.e., one that specifically provides coverage for a particular project)
3
and says that its policy excludes coverage for property damage to projects insured under such
4
policies. (Dkt. No. 66, SAC ¶¶ 20-22, 34). RFAs 10-12 and Interrogatories 23-25 essentially seek
5

the basis for Travelers’ belief that a “Wrap Policy” 2 exists:

6
7

RFA 10:

“Admit that Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc. was insured under a
Wrap Policy for the Project.”

RFA 11:

“Admit that Taylor Morrison of California, LLC was insured under
a Wrap Policy for the Project.”

RFA 12:

“Admit that Taylor Morrison Services, Inc. was insured under a
Wrap Policy for the Project.”

Interrogatory 23:

“If your response to RFA No. 10 is anything other than an
unqualified admission, please state all facts to support Your
contention that Taylor Woodrow Homes, Inc. was not insured under
a Wrap Policy for the Project.”

Interrogatory 24:

“If your response to RFA No. 11 is anything other than an
unqualified admission, please state all facts to support Your
contention that Taylor Morrison of California, LLC was not insured
under a Wrap Policy for the Project.”

Interrogatory 25:

“If your response to RFA No. 12 is anything other than an
unqualified admission, please state all facts to support Your
contention that Taylor Morrison Services, Inc. was not insured under
a Wrap Policy for the Project.”

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

(DDJR No. 1, Exs. A and B). Travelers maintains that it has a reasonable belief that Taylor
Morrison is insured under such a policy. But, as this court reads plaintiff’s discovery responses
and arguments on the instant DDJR, Travelers essentially says it has no evidence to support its
wrap policy allegations. On that basis, the request for further discovery is denied because this

25
26
27
28

2

Arch’s discovery requests define the term “Wrap Policy” as “a consolidated insurance program
provided by the prime contractor/project manager or owner specifically for the Project.” (DDJR
No. 1, Exs. A and B).
3

1
2
3
4
5

court cannot compel plaintiff to provide information Travelers says it does not have.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 28, 2014
______________________________________
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6
7
8
9
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
4

1
2

5:12-cv-04204-EJD Notice has been electronically mailed to:

3

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

4

Alan Edward Swerdlow

5

Daniel Eli [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail]

6
7

[e-mail], [e-mail]

Gregory Jacob Newman [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]

8
9
10

Kimberly Rene Arnal [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]
Matthew Stuart Harvey

[e-mail], [e-mail]

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

Patrick Michael McGovern

[e-mail]

Ronald D. Echeguren [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5