United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Tacoma
CAMERON LUNDQUIST, an individual, and LEENAN LARA, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ON INSURER DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR
J. Bryan United States District Judge.
MATTER comes before the Court on Defendants First National
Insurance Company of America (“First National”)
and LM General Insurance Company's (“LM
General”) (collectively “Insurer
Defendants”) Motion for Protective Order as to Second
Rule 30(b)(6) deposition. Dkt. 123. The Court has considered
the pleadings filed regarding the motion and the remaining
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
putative class action, the Plaintiffs assert that
Defendants' practice of using unexplained and unjustified
condition adjustments to comparable vehicles when valuing a
total loss claim for a vehicle, violates the Washington
Administrative Code (“WAC”), specifically WAC
284-30-391 (4)(b) and (5)(d), and so constitutes: (1) breach
of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, (3) violation of Washington's Consumer
Protection Act, RCW 19.86., et seq.
(“CPA”) and (4) civil conspiracy. Dkt. 90. The
Plaintiffs seek damages, declaratory and injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs. Id.
parties have exchanged written discovery and produced
thousands of pages of documents. Dkt. 123-1, at 2-3. On May
16, 2019, in response to the Plaintiff's Fed.R.Civ.P.
30(b)(6) notice, the Insurer Defendants produced Jeff
Gabriel, Director of their Central Data Office, to sit for
the deposition. Id., at 3. It lasted for over four
August 9, 2019, the Plaintiffs served a second Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition notice on the Insurer Defendants. Dkt. 123-2. This
Notice of Deposition identifies 18 topics for discussion.
Id. The Insurer Defendants responded with
objections. Dkt. 123-4. The parties met and conferred and
were unable to resolve this discovery dispute. Dkt. 123-1, at
Insurer Defendants now move for an order protecting its
Fed.R.Civ.P. 30 (b)(6) deponent from having to testify a
second time and/or from having to testify about certain
matters identified in the Plaintiffs' Rule 30 (b)(6)
deposition notice. Dkt. 123. They also move for an award of
attorneys' fees. Id. The Plaintiffs oppose the
motion. Dkt. 124.
deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
is October 4, 2019, the fact discovery deadline is November
20, 2019, the dispositive motions deadline is December 20,
2020, and the trial is set to begin on April 6, 2020. Dkt.
STANDARD ON DISCOVERY GENERALLY
Civ. p. 26(b)(1) provides:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of
discovery is as follows: 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, considering the importance of the issues at stake
in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties'
relative access to relevant information, the parties'
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the
issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed
discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within
this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to
court should and ordinarily does interpret
‘relevant' very broadly to mean matter that is
relevant to anything that is or may become an issue in the
litigation.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v.
Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351, n.12 (1978)(quoting
4 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 26.56 , p. 26-131 n.
34 (2d ed. 1976)).
RULE 30 AND STANDARD ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Civ. P. 30(b)(6) “Notice or Subpoena Directed to an
Organization, ” provides in relevant part that:
“[i]n its notice or subpoena, a party may name as the
deponent a public or private corporation . . . and must
describe with reasonable particularity the matters for
examination.” Rule 30(d)(1) provides,
Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a
deposition is limited to one day of 7 hours. The court must
allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(1) and (2)
if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent .
. . or any other circumstance impedes or delays the
Under Fed.R.Civ.p. 26(b)(2)(C),
On motion or on its own, the court must limit the frequency
or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules or by
local rule if it determines that:
(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or
duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that
is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive;
(ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to
obtain the information by discovery in the action; or
(iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope permitted
by Rule 26 (b)(1).
pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1), for good cause, the court may
“issue an order to protect a party or person from . . .
oppression, or undue burden or expense, including . . .
forbidding the disclosure or discovery . . . [or] limiting
the scope of disclosure or discovery.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(c)(1)(A) and (D).
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - TIME, TOPICS IN DISPUTE IN THE
30(b)(6) NOTICE OF DEPOSITION, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS'
Insurer Defendants move for a protective order either
preventing their Rule 30(b)(6) deponent from being deposed
again or ...