Summary
denying plaintiff's request for underwriting manuals, which plaintiff argued would be relevant to "interpret the insurance policy language," as risk assessment and costs of coverage and/or premiums were not at issue in that case
Summary of this case from Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp.Opinion
Case No. 12-cv-297 BEN (WMc)
10-05-2012
CHRISTIAN NAYLOR, an individual; and CHRISTIAN NAYLOR dba NAYLOR CONSTRUCTION, Plaintiffs, v. NAVIGATORS INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation; NAVIGATORS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC. , a corporation; LINCOLN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation; GEMINI INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, W.R. BERKLEY CORPORATION, a corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S
MOTION TO COMPEL
[ECF No. 38.]
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 10, 2012, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference in the above-entitled matter. After hearing from counsel of record regarding the status of Defendant Gemini Insurance Company's responses to Plaintiff's Requests for Production, the Court requested briefing on Plaintiffs' motion to compel.
Plaintiff Christian Naylor of Naylor Construction is a general contractor. Defendant Gemini Insurance is the insurance company of one of Plaintiff's subcontractors, Coast Contracting & Development, Inc. Plaintiff contends it is an additional insured under the subcontractor's policy with Gemini. As proof of its status as an additional insured, Plaintiff argues it was provided with a Certificate of Insurance and Additional Insured Endorsement. In the course of discovery, Plaintiff propounded Requests for Production ("RFP") on Gemini and Gemini objected to the RFPs on the following grounds: (1) confidential trade secret; (2) privileged under the attorney-client and work product doctrines; (3) relevance; and (4) overbreadth. Gemini's responsive document production consisted only of objections and certified copies of Gemini's insurance policies. Plaintiff's filed the instant motion to compel to obtain Gemini's claims file and other documents it contends are relevant and needed to respond to Gemini's motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether Plaintiff is an additional insured as is required by the Gemini insurance policy. The hearing on Gemini's motion for summary judgment is scheduled for October 15, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. before the Honorable Roger T. Benitez. [ECF No.40.]
A. Gemini Insurance Company's Objections to Plaintiff's RFPs
Gemini argues Plaintiff's discovery requests are irrelevant and boilerplate in light of the fact that each of its insurance policies includes language defining an "additional insured" as: "an insured any person or organization for whom you are performing operations when you and such person or organization have agreed in writing in a contract or agreement that such person or organization be added as an additional insured on your policy." (Italics added.) Gemini argues the Certificate of Liability Insurance provided to Plaintiff by its subcontractor's insurance broker does not qualify as a written contract to add an insured as is required under Gemini's policy, but is merely a receipt showing that some policy has been issued. Gemini argues the majority of Plaintiff's one-size-fits-all production requests are irrelevant to the threshold issue here which is, does the Certificate of Liability Insurance ("COI") constitute a written contract or agreement under the Gemini policy language? Gemini argues that the lack of an actual contract naming Plaintiff as an additional insured as required by Gemini makes Plaintiff's document requests on the issues of what may constitute an agreement or what would constitute a waiver of the additional insured policy provision irrelevant.
B. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Responses to Its Requests for Production
Plaintiff argues it has the right to review Gemini's claims file to determine whether it contains any information to support Plaintiff's allegations rather than allowing Gemini to determine what in the claims file may be likely to lead to relevant evidence. Specifically, Plaintiff states it might discover information in the claims file pertaining to: (1) Gemini's reasons for declining coverage; (2) Gemini's initial interpretation and review of the policy language such that a waiver argument could be made in support of Plaintiff's claim; and (3) communications between Gemini and its broker regarding the Certificate of Insurance or the additional insured provisions. Plaintiff also argues it needs claims file information to oppose Gemini's pending motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether Plaintiff is an additional insured under its subcontractor's policy with Gemini. Plaintiff notes that the standard of review for a motion to compel is broad-based and designed to assist Plaintiff not only in proving its contract claim on the issue of whether Plaintiff qualifies as an additional insured, but Plaintiff's overall claim for bad faith.
II. Standard under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
"Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.... Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). This rule is to be considered broadly, to include "any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case." Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). III. DISCUSSION
The Court has reviewed the parties' briefing as well as Plaintiff's RFPs and Gemini's objections and responses. The Court finds many of Plaintiff's requests are general and overbroad (such as RFP Nos. 28-38 on data retention policies) and unlikely to assist Plaintiff in collecting facts to support its opposition to the motion for summary judgment on the limited issue of whether Plaintiff is an additional insured under the Gemini insurance policy. In its motion to compel, Plaintiff acknowledges the time is not yet ripe for discovery on data retention issues and requests the Court reserve ruling on RFP Nos. 28 to 38 until, if necessary, a further document production and meet-and-confer process have been done. [ECF No. 38 at p. 8.] The Court agrees. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion to compel responses to RFP Nos. 28 to 38 is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. As for requests that pointedly address the policy interpretation and claims handling information that Plaintiff contends is vital to support its claim and oppose the motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff's specifically identifies the following RFPs in the chart below for the Court's consideration in its motion to compel. The Court's ruling appears in the third and last column.
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Request for Production No.¦Arguments re: ¦Court's Ruling ¦ ¦ ¦Relevance ¦ ¦ +--------------------------+-------------------+------------------------------¦ ¦#2: Any and all DOCUMENTS ¦ ¦Risk assessment and the costs ¦ ¦or tangible things ¦Plaintiff contends ¦of coverage and/or premiums is¦ ¦RELATING TO the ¦underwriting ¦not at issue in this case and ¦ ¦underwriting or issuance ¦information would ¦is irrelevant on the issue of ¦ ¦of YOUR liability ¦indicate whether ¦whether the COI qualifies as a¦ ¦Insurance POLICY numbers ¦Gemini included ¦written agreement sufficient ¦ ¦... including all ¦Plaintiff as a ¦to name Plaintiff as an ¦ ¦Schedules, Endorsements ¦factor in its ¦additional insured. ¦ ¦and Forms attached and ¦assessment of risk.¦Plaintiff's motion as to RFP ¦ ¦made a part of the policy.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦No. 2 is DENIED. ¦ +--------------------------+-------------------+------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Risk management between two or¦ ¦#3: Any and all ¦Plaintiff contends ¦more insurance companies in an¦ ¦ ¦reinsurance ¦insurer/ reinsurer ¦ ¦DOCUMENTS pertaining ¦information would ¦relationship is not at issue ¦ ¦ ¦indicate whether ¦here and is irrelevant as to ¦ ¦to reinsurance, between ¦Gemini included ¦whether the COI qualifies as a¦ ¦February 26, 2004, and the¦Plaintiff as a ¦written agreement sufficient ¦ ¦present for the subject ¦factor in its ¦to name Plaintiff as an ¦ ¦POLICY. ¦assessment of risk.¦additional insured. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiff's motion as to RFP ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦No. 3 is DENIED. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦The threshold issue which ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦permeates this case and is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦presented by Defendant's motion ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦for summary judgment is whether ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiff contends the¦there is coverage for Plaintiff ¦ ¦#4: Any and all ¦establishment of a ¦as an additional insured. The ¦ ¦ ¦reserve may show ¦establishment of, or amount of, ¦ ¦DOCUMENTS RELATING TO¦whether Gemini ¦reserves kept by Gemini in order¦ ¦reserves ¦believed there was ¦to meet its insurance ¦ ¦ ¦coverage under the ¦obligations is not at issue here¦ ¦for any CLAIMS made ¦policy for additional ¦and is irrelevant on the issue ¦ ¦on the policy. ¦insureds. ¦of whether the COI qualifies as ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦a written agreement sufficient ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦to name Plaintiff as an ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦additional insured. Plaintiff's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦motion as to RFP No. 4 is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. ¦ +---------------------+----------------------+--------------------------------¦ ¦#5 and #6: Any and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦all ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiff argues cost ¦The costs incurred by Gemini as ¦ ¦DOCUMENTS...COMMU ¦information is ¦a result of claims made on the ¦ ¦ ¦typically requested in¦policy has no bearing on the ¦ ¦NICATIONS.... ¦a bad faith insurance ¦issue of whether the COI ¦ ¦ ¦case and cost ¦qualifies as a written agreement¦ ¦RELATING TO the costs¦information may ¦sufficient to name Plaintiff as ¦ ¦of any CLAIMS made on¦suggest whether Gemini¦an additional insured. ¦ ¦the POLICY that was ¦acted as if there was ¦Plaintiff's motion as to RFP ¦ ¦handled by YOU from ¦contract between ¦Nos. 5 and 6 is ¦ ¦February 26, 2004 to ¦Plaintiff and the ¦ ¦ ¦present, including ¦subcontractor. ¦DENIED. ¦ ¦but no limited to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦memorandums, letters ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and electronic mail. ¦ ¦ ¦ +---------------------+----------------------+--------------------------------¦ ¦#7: The originals of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦any ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and all DOCUMENTS ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦RELATING TO YOUR ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦complete underwriting¦ ¦ ¦ ¦file ¦Plaintiff contends ¦Risk assessment and the costs of¦ ¦ ¦underwriting ¦coverage and/or premiums is not ¦ ¦for the POLICY, ¦information would ¦at issue in this case and is ¦ ¦including ¦indicate whether ¦irrelevant on the issue of ¦ ¦ ¦Gemini included ¦whether the COI qualifies as a ¦ ¦all information ¦Plaintiff as a factor ¦written agreement sufficient to ¦ ¦related to your ¦in its assessment of ¦name Plaintiff as an additional ¦ ¦investigation for any¦risk. ¦insured. Plaintiff's motion as ¦ ¦CLAIMS made on the ¦ ¦to RFP No. 7 is DENIED. ¦ ¦POLICY from February ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦26, 2004 to the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦present, including ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦but no limited to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦memorandums, letters ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and electronic mail. ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦#8: The ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦originals of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦any ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiff ¦ ¦ ¦and all ¦argues claim ¦ ¦ ¦DOCUMENTS ¦file related ¦ ¦ ¦RELATING TO ¦documents may¦Plaintiff is entitled to discover nonprivileged documents re: ¦ ¦YOUR ¦demonstrate ¦claims made under the additional insured provision in the subcontractor's ¦ ¦ ¦the ¦policy. Plaintiff's motion as to RFP No. 8 is GRANTED as modified by the Court ¦ ¦complete claims¦applicability¦above. ¦ ¦file for any ¦of Gemini's ¦ ¦ ¦CLAIMS made on ¦'no contract'¦ ¦ ¦the POLICY from¦defense. ¦ ¦ ¦February ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦26, 2004 to the¦ ¦ ¦ ¦present. ¦ ¦ ¦ +---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦#9: Any and all¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiff ¦ ¦ ¦COMMUNICATIONS ¦argues claim ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦file related ¦ ¦ ¦published and/ ¦documents may¦ ¦ ¦or transmitted ¦demonstrate ¦Plaintiff is entitled to discover nonprivileged documents that ¦ ¦through ¦the ¦refer to the treatment or coverage of Plaintiff under the terms of the subcontractor's policy. Plaintiff's¦ ¦DEFENDANTS' ¦applicability¦motion as to RFP No. 9 is GRANTED as modified by the Court above. ¦ ¦INTRANET and/or¦of Gemini's ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦'no contract'¦ ¦ ¦INTERNET ¦defense. ¦ ¦ ¦RELATING TO the¦ ¦ ¦ ¦POLICY. ¦ ¦ ¦ +---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦#10: Any and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦all ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DOCUMENTS ¦Plaintiff ¦ ¦ ¦REGARDING, ¦argues claim ¦ ¦ ¦REFLECTING OR ¦file related ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦documents may¦ ¦ ¦PERTAINING TO ¦demonstrate ¦Plaintiff is entitled to discover the correspondence between it and Gemini as ¦ ¦any and ¦the ¦it pertains to the insurance policy at issue in this case. Plaintiff's motion ¦ ¦ ¦applicability¦as to RFP No. 10 is GRANTED. ¦ ¦all ¦of Gemini's ¦ ¦ ¦COMMUNICATIONS,¦'no contract'¦ ¦ ¦ ¦defense. ¦ ¦ ¦whether written¦ ¦ ¦ ¦or oral, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦between YOU and¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the Plaintiffs.¦ ¦ ¦ +---------------+-------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiff ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦argues claim ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦file related ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦documents may¦ ¦ ¦ ¦demonstrate ¦ ¦ ¦#11: Any and ¦the ¦ ¦ ¦all ¦applicability¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of Gemini's ¦ ¦ ¦DOCUMENTS ¦'no contract'¦ ¦ ¦REGARDING, ¦defense. In ¦ ¦ ¦REFLECTING OR ¦particular, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiff ¦ ¦ ¦PERTAINING TO ¦argues the ¦Plaintiff is entitled to discover nonprivileged documents that ¦ ¦any and all ¦interactions ¦refer to the treatment or coverage of Plaintiff under the terms of the subcontractor's policy. Plaintiff's¦ ¦COMMUNICATIONS,¦between ¦motion as to RFP No. 11 is GRANTED as modified by the Court above. ¦ ¦whether written¦Gemini and ¦ ¦ ¦or oral, ¦its agents or¦ ¦ ¦between YOU and¦brokers ¦ ¦ ¦any other ¦handling the ¦ ¦ ¦person/entity ¦policies may ¦ ¦ ¦regarding the ¦yield ¦ ¦ ¦policy. ¦information ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦on the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦significance ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Certificate ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦of Insurance.¦ ¦ +------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦Ultimately, it is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the province of the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Court to make a ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiff contends ¦threshold ¦ ¦ ¦in-house insurance ¦determination as to ¦ ¦ ¦documents ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦explaining Gemini's¦whether the language¦ ¦ ¦policy on to how to¦of the contract is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦unambiguous. ¦ ¦ ¦interpret, ¦Curry v. Moody, 40¦ ¦ ¦administer or ¦Cal. App. ¦ ¦ ¦handle additional ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦insured claims, may¦4th 1547, 1552 (Cal.¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Ct. App.1995). Until¦ ¦ ¦help the Court ¦such time ¦ ¦#14: Any and all DOCUMENTS or ¦interpret the ¦ ¦ ¦tangible things RELATING TO the ¦insurance policy ¦as the District ¦ ¦ ¦language. ¦Court makes ¦ ¦interpretation or meaning of any ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦policy language, including but not ¦Gemini argues no ¦that decision, ¦ ¦limited to, grants of coverage and/ ¦documents on ¦Plaintiff is ¦ ¦or exclusions, relied upon by YOU to¦contract ¦entitled to discover¦ ¦grant, limit or deny any and all ¦interpretation are ¦nonprivileged ¦ ¦insurance claims made under this ¦ ¦documents ¦ ¦POLICY. ¦needed because ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiff argued in¦bearing on Gemini's ¦ ¦ ¦its opposition to ¦understanding and ¦ ¦ ¦the MSJ that ¦handling ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the "endorsement ¦of the additional ¦ ¦ ¦regarding an ¦insured ¦ ¦ ¦additional insured ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦is policy ¦language in the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦subcontractor's ¦ ¦ ¦language that is ¦policy. ¦ ¦ ¦clear and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦unambiguous." ¦Plaintiff's motion ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦as to RFP ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦No. 14 is GRANTED. ¦ +------------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦The benefits paid ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦under the policy is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦not at issue here ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and is irrelevant on¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiff argues ¦the issue of ¦ ¦#15: Any and all ¦claim file ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦whether the COI ¦ ¦DOCUMENTS related to ¦related documents ¦qualifies as ¦ ¦ ¦may ¦ ¦ ¦the policy benefits submitted, ¦ ¦a written agreement ¦ ¦requested, approved or paid under ¦demonstrate the ¦sufficient to name ¦ ¦the ¦applicability of ¦Plaintiff as an ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦POLICY. ¦Gemini's 'no ¦additional insured. ¦ ¦ ¦contract' defense. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiff's motion ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦as to RFP ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦No. 15 is DENIED. ¦ +------------------------------------+-------------------+--------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Losses suffered ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦under the policy are¦ ¦#16: Any and all ¦ ¦not at issue here ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DOCUMENTS or tangible things ¦Plaintiff argues ¦and are irrelevant ¦ ¦RELATING TO the ¦claim file ¦on the issue of ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦whether the COI ¦ ¦POLICY for any losses from February ¦related documents ¦qualifies ¦ ¦26, 2004 through present, including ¦may ¦ ¦ ¦but not limited to ¦ ¦as a written ¦ ¦ ¦demonstrate the ¦agreement sufficient¦ ¦DOCUMENTS from and ¦applicability of ¦to name Plaintiff as¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦to third party adjusters and any ¦Gemini's 'no ¦an additional ¦ ¦other consultant(s) YOU used to ¦contract' defense. ¦insured. ¦ ¦investigate claims made under the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦POLICY. ¦ ¦Plaintiff's motion ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦as to RFP ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦No. 16 is DENIED. ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiff is entitled to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦discover nonprivileged ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiff contends ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦in-house insurance ¦documents bearing on ¦ ¦ ¦documents explaining ¦ ¦ ¦#19: Any and all ¦Gemini's policy on to how¦Gemini's understanding and ¦ ¦DOCUMENTS RELATING¦to interpret, administer ¦handling of the ¦ ¦TO YOUR claims ¦or handle additional ¦additional insured language in¦ ¦manuals. ¦insured claims, may help ¦the subcontractor's policy. ¦ ¦ ¦the Court interpret the ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦insurance policy ¦Plaintiff's motion as to RFP ¦ ¦ ¦language. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦No. 19 is GRANTED as ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦modified by the Court above. ¦ +------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------------¦ ¦#20: Any and all ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦manuals, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦guidelines, ¦ ¦Plaintiff is entitled to ¦ ¦bulletins, ¦ ¦discover nonprivileged ¦ ¦directives, ¦Plaintiff contends ¦ ¦ ¦booklets, ¦in-house insurance ¦documents bearing on ¦ ¦instruction, or ¦documents explaining ¦Gemini's handling of the ¦ ¦other ¦Gemini's policy on to how¦ ¦ ¦ ¦to interpret, administer ¦additional insured language in¦ ¦DOCUMENTS ¦or handle additional ¦the subcontractor's policy. ¦ ¦reflecting ¦insured claims, may help ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the Court interpret the ¦Plaintiff's motion as to RFP ¦ ¦YOUR procedures, ¦insurance policy ¦ ¦ ¦practices and ¦language. ¦No. 20 is GRANTED as ¦ ¦methodologies for ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦assessing any and ¦ ¦modified by the Court above. ¦ ¦all claims in good¦ ¦ ¦ ¦faith and fair ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦dealing. ¦ ¦ ¦ +------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------------¦ ¦#21: Any and all ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦manuals, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦guidelines, ¦ ¦Requests No. 21 is overbroad and¦ ¦bulletins, ¦ ¦seeks documents that are ¦ ¦directives, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦booklets, ¦Plaintiff contends ¦potentially duplicative of ¦ ¦instruction, or ¦in-house insurance ¦ ¦ ¦other ¦documents explaining ¦those documents produced in ¦ ¦ ¦Gemini's policy on to how¦ ¦ ¦DOCUMENTS ¦to interpret, administer ¦response to more carefully ¦ ¦reflecting ¦or handle additional ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦insured claims, may help ¦tailored RFPs. Fed. R. Civ. ¦ ¦YOUR procedures, ¦the Court interpret the ¦ ¦ ¦practices and ¦insurance policy ¦P. 26(b)(2)(C). Plaintiff's ¦ ¦ ¦language. ¦ ¦ ¦methodologies for ¦ ¦motion as to RFP No. 21 is ¦ ¦training adjusters¦ ¦DENIED. ¦ ¦to handle claims ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦in good faith and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦with fair dealing.¦ ¦ ¦ +------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------------¦ ¦#22: Any and all ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DOCUMENTS ¦ ¦Plaintiff is entitled to ¦ ¦published ¦ ¦discover nonprivileged ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦and/or transmitted¦Plaintiff contends ¦documents bearing on ¦ ¦by ¦in-house insurance ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦documents explaining ¦Gemini's understanding and ¦ ¦DEFENDANTS ¦Gemini's policy on to how¦handling of the additional ¦ ¦regarding ¦to interpret, administer ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦or handle additional ¦insured language in the ¦ ¦claims handling ¦insured claims, may help ¦ ¦ ¦procedures for ¦the Court interpret the ¦subcontractor's policy. ¦ ¦policies ¦insurance policy ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦language. ¦Plaintiff's motion as to RFP No.¦ ¦such as the POLICY¦ ¦22 is GRANTED as ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦issued to Coast ¦ ¦modified by the Court above. ¦ ¦Contracting. ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦#23: Any and all ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦underwriting manuals,¦ ¦ ¦ ¦guidelines, ¦Plaintiff contends ¦Risk assessment and the costs¦ ¦bulletins, ¦in-house insurance ¦of coverage and/or premiums ¦ ¦directives, booklets,¦documents explaining ¦is not at issue in this case ¦ ¦instruction or other ¦Gemini's policy on to how¦and is irrelevant on the ¦ ¦DOCUMENTS in use by ¦to interpret, administer ¦issue of whether the COI ¦ ¦YOU in the last ten ¦or handle additional ¦qualifies as a written ¦ ¦years ¦insured claims, may help ¦agreement sufficient to name ¦ ¦ ¦the Court interpret the ¦Plaintiff as an additional ¦ ¦RELATING TO policies ¦insurance policy ¦insured. Plaintiff's motion ¦ ¦such as the POLICY ¦language. ¦as to RFP No. 23 is DENIED. ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦issued to Coast ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Contracting. ¦ ¦ ¦ +---------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦#24: Any and all ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DOCUMENTS or tangible¦ ¦ ¦ ¦things RELATING TO ¦ ¦Request 24 is overbroad and ¦ ¦bad ¦Plaintiff contends this ¦irrelevant to the threshold ¦ ¦ ¦information would ¦issue of whether the COI in ¦ ¦faith claims against ¦demonstrate how Gemini ¦this case qualifies as a ¦ ¦YOU in the past 10 ¦interpreted other ¦written agreement sufficient ¦ ¦years ¦additional insured claims¦to name Plaintiff as an ¦ ¦ ¦under similar ¦additional insured. ¦ ¦RELATING TO policies ¦circumstances. ¦Plaintiff's motion ¦ ¦such as the POLICY ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦as to RFP No. 24 is DENIED. ¦ ¦issued to Coast ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Contracting. ¦ ¦ ¦ +---------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦#25: Any and all ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦COMPLAINTS filed ¦ ¦Request 25 is overbroad and ¦ ¦ ¦Plaintiff contends this ¦irrelevant to the threshold ¦ ¦against YOU in the ¦information would ¦issue of whether the COI in ¦ ¦past 10 years ¦demonstrate how Gemini ¦this case qualifies as a ¦ ¦alleging Unfair ¦interpreted other ¦written agreement sufficient ¦ ¦Claims ¦additional insured claims¦to name Plaintiff as an ¦ ¦ ¦under similar ¦additional insured. ¦ ¦Practices....RELATING¦circumstances. ¦Plaintiff's motion ¦ ¦TO policies such as ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦the POLICY issued to ¦ ¦as to RFP No. 25 is DENIED. ¦ ¦Coast Contracting. ¦ ¦ ¦ +---------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦#26: Any and all ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦COMPLAINTS filed ¦ ¦Request 26 is overbroad and ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦irrelevant to the threshold ¦ ¦against YOU in the ¦Plaintiff contends this ¦issue of whether the COI in ¦ ¦past 10 years with a ¦information would ¦this case qualifies as a ¦ ¦pleading for relief ¦demonstrate how Gemini ¦written agreement sufficient ¦ ¦of Extra Contractual ¦interpreted other ¦to name Plaintiff as an ¦ ¦ ¦additional insured claims¦additional insured. ¦ ¦damages RELATING TO ¦under similar ¦Plaintiff's motion ¦ ¦ ¦circumstances. ¦ ¦ ¦policies such as the ¦ ¦as to RFP No. 26 is DENIED. ¦ ¦POLICY issued to ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Coast Contracting. ¦ ¦ ¦ +---------------------+-------------------------+-----------------------------¦ ¦#27: Any and all ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DOCUMENTS, ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦COMMUNICATIONS and ¦Plaintiff contends ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦in-house insurance ¦Historical changes to policy ¦ ¦tangible things ¦documents explaining ¦language are irrelevant on ¦ ¦RELATING TO prior ¦Gemini's policy on to how¦the issue of whether the COI ¦ ¦versions, prior ¦to interpret, administer ¦qualifies as a written ¦ ¦drafts, and/or policy¦or handle additional ¦agreement sufficient to name ¦ ¦language changes to ¦insured claims, may help ¦Plaintiff as an additional ¦ ¦YOUR ¦the Court interpret the ¦insured. Plaintiff's motion ¦ ¦ ¦insurance policy ¦ ¦ ¦POLICY within the ¦language. ¦as to RFP No. 27 is DENIED. ¦ ¦last ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ten years. ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦#40-41: Exact ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦copies...of all hard ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦drives on the desktop ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦computers... , servers ¦ ¦Requests Nos. 40 and 41 are ¦ ¦and other electronic ¦ ¦overbroad and burdensome. ¦ ¦media related to this ¦Plaintiff argues this ¦ ¦ ¦action from 2004 ¦information is typically¦Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).¦ ¦through present. ¦requested in a bad faith¦ ¦ ¦ ¦insurance case. ¦Plaintiff's motion as to RFP¦ ¦Exact copies of all ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦relevant disks, CDs, ¦ ¦Nos. 40 and 41 is DENIED. ¦ ¦DVDs and other ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦removable media related¦ ¦ ¦ ¦to this action. ¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------+------------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦ ¦ ¦Requests No. 42 is overbroad¦ ¦#42: ALL DOCUMENTS that¦ ¦and seeks documents that are¦ ¦contain or otherwise ¦ ¦potentially duplicative of ¦ ¦relate to the facts or ¦Plaintiff argues this ¦those documents produced in ¦ ¦information that YOU ¦information is typically¦response to more carefully ¦ ¦contend, refutes, in ¦requested in a bad faith¦ ¦ ¦any way, the ¦insurance case. ¦tailored RFPs. Fed. R. Civ. ¦ ¦allegations contained ¦ ¦P. 26(b)(2)(C). Plaintiff's ¦ ¦in the Complaint in ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦this action. ¦ ¦motion as to RFP No. 42 is ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦DENIED. ¦ +-----------------------+------------------------+----------------------------¦ ¦#43: Any and all ¦ ¦Adjusters' bonus ¦ ¦DOCUMENTS including ¦Plaintiff contends ¦compensation structure is ¦ ¦ ¦information on variable ¦not at issue here and is ¦ ¦but not limited to ¦pay would indicate ¦irrelevant on the issue of ¦ ¦those ¦whether any factors ¦whether the COI qualifies as¦ ¦documents....RELATING ¦other than applicable ¦a written agreement ¦ ¦TO any bonus plan/ ¦policy language were ¦sufficient to name Plaintiff¦ ¦variable pay or ¦being considered during ¦as an additional insured. ¦ ¦incentive programs for ¦the handling of ¦Plaintiff's motion as to RFP¦ ¦YOUR claims personnel ¦Plaintiff's claim. ¦No. 43 is DENIED. ¦ ¦for the past ten years.¦ ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ IV. CONCLUSION
In accordance with the Court's findings expressed above, Defendants are ordered to produce documents in response to the relevant RFPs listed above no later than October 10, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________
Hon. William McCurine, Jr.
U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d): If a nonmovant shows by affidavit, or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may:...(2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery;...."