Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sunwood Condominium Association v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

May 2, 2017

SUNWOOD CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, a Washington nonprofit corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on the motion to compel by Defendant St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (Dkt. No. 48) and the motions for protective order by Plaintiff Sunwood Condominium Association (Dkt. Nos. 54, 55). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and, for the reasons explained herein, DENIES the motion to compel (Dkt. No. 48) and GRANTS the motions for protective order (Dkt. Nos. 54, 55).[1]

         I. BACKGROUND

         This is an insurance dispute. The underlying property is a condominium building maintained by Plaintiff Sunwood Condominium Association. (Dkt. No. 1 at 2.) Defendants are companies that at one time insured the building. (See Id. at 2-4.)

         On August 21, 2012, Sunwood hired non-party J2 Building Consultants to diagnose building leaks and associated damage. (Dkt. No. 50 at 6.) J2 found high moisture content and water damage that needed to be repaired. (Id.) On December 2, 2014, J2 prepared a findings report describing hidden damage from weather conditions. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5; Dkt. No. 52-1 at 1.) On April 20, 2015, J2 prepared a second report attributing the damage to “wind driven rain events.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 6; Dkt. No. 52-1 at 6, 9.)

         Sunwood tendered claims to each of the Defendant insurers. (Dkt. No. 1 at 6.) Defendants denied the claims. (See Id. at 7.)

         On June 29, 2016, Sunwood brought suit, seeking declaratory relief and damages for breach of contract, insurance bad faith, and violations of Washington's claim handling standards, Insurance Fair Conduct Act, and Consumer Protection Act. (Dkt. No. 1 at 6-12.)

         Defendant St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company now seeks to compel J2 to appear at a Rule 30(b)(6)[2] deposition to testify about the 2014 and 2015 reports. (Dkt. No. 48 at 1-2.)

         Sunwood and J2 oppose this request to the extent that St. Paul seeks Rule 30(b)(6) testimony about the opinions in the reports, as opposed to just factual testimony. (See Dkt. No. 55 at 2.) Sunwood and J2 assert that no current J2 employee has personal knowledge as to the opinions in the reports, but that Kris Eggert-the former J2 employee who prepared the reports-will testify as an expert witness. (Dkt. No. 61 at 1-2.) Sunwood also seeks a protective order as to (1) the timing of Eggert's deposition, postponing it until after he has produced his expert report and (2) the scope of J2's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition, limiting it to factual testimony and narrowing the categories in St. Paul's subpoena. (Dkt. No. 54 at 1; Dkt. No. 55 at 1-2.)

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standards

         “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1). The Court has broad discretion to decide whether to compel disclosure of discovery. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002).

         On a motion for a protective order, the Court “may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c)(1). District courts are vested with broad discretion in determining whether a protective order is appropriate and, if so, what degree of protection is warranted. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36 (1984).

         B. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.