Sousie et al v. Allstate Indemnity Company

Filing 81

ORDER by Judge Benjamin H. Settle denying 48 Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike and declining production after in camera review.(TG)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8

ALEXANDER M. and AMY N.
SOUSIE,

9

Plaintiffs,
v.

10

CASE NO. C17-5078 BHS
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION TO STRIKE AND
DECLINING PRODUCTION
AFTER IN CAMERA REVIEW

ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY,
11
Defendant.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Alexander and Amy Sousie’s
(“Sousies”) motion to compel (Dkt. 46) and motion to strike testimony (Dkt. 48), the
Court’s order on the motions, and Defendant Allstate Indemnity Company’s (“Allstate”)
supplemental responses (Dkt. 71, 76). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in
support of and in opposition to the motions and the remainder of the file and hereby rules
as follows:

19
20
21

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 4, 2017, the Sousies served the Washington Insurance Commissioner
with a complaint against Defendant and foreign insurer Allstate Indemnity Company

22

ORDER - 1

1

(“Allstate”). Dkt. 1-1. The Sousies assert a cause of action for breach of their insurance

2

agreement and a violation of Washington’s Insurance Fair Conduct Act (“IFCA”). Id.

3

On January 4, 2018, the Sousies filed a motion to compel requesting that the Court

4

order Allstate to produce 35 redacted entries from its claims history document and 10

5

other documents and grant leave to conduct a second deposition of Allstate’s investigator,

6

Peter Poulos. Dkt. 46. On January 16, 2018, Allstate responded. Dkt. 50. On January

7

19, 2018, the Sousies replied. Dkt. 52.

8
9
10
11

On January 5, 2018, the Sousies filed a motion to strike Allstate’s rebuttal expert.
Dkt. 48. On January 22, 2018, Allstate responded. Dkt. 54. On January 22, 2018, the
Sousies replied. Dkt. 56.
On Febraury 26, 2018, the Court issued an order on the Sousies’ motions. Dkt. 70.

12

First, the Court renoted the Sousies’ motion to strike to allow Allstate an opportunity to

13

explain its untimely disclosure of an expert. Id. On March 5, 2018, Allstate responded.

14

Dkt. 71. The Sousies did not reply.

15

Second, the Court granted the motion to compel in part, denied it in part, and

16

allowed Allstate the opportunity to submit two documents for in camera review along

17

with a declaration supporting Allstate’s claims of privilege. On March 9, 2018, Allstate

18

submitted one document for review, Bates #SOUSIE000001213, and a declaration in

19

support of its position. Dkt. 76.

20
21
22

II. DISCUSSION
Regarding the motion to compel, the document submitted for in camera review
seems innocuous. The document contains a summary of a letter sent to the Sousies’

ORDER - 2

1

attorney in response to their IFCA complaint. The summary appears to be written by an

2

Allstate employee completing claim management activities. Without further explanation,

3

the document is not subject to privilege. On the other hand, the document is not relevant

4

to any issue in this case. Therefore, the Court concludes that Allstate need not produce

5

the document.

6

Regarding the motion to strike, Allstate has provided sufficient information to

7

show that the untimely disclosure was harmless. If necessary, the Sousies have sufficient

8

time to obtain a rebuttal expert or depose Allstate’s expert. Therefore, the Court denies

9

the Sousies’ motion.

10
11

III. ORDER
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Allstate need not produce the document

12

submitted for in camera review, Bates #SOUSIE000001213, and the Sousies’ motion to

13

strike testimony (Dkt. 48) is DENIED.

14

Dated this 14th day of March, 2018.

A

15
16

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 3