Chavez v. Allstate Northbrook Indemnity Company

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MINERVA CHAVEZ, individually and Case No.: 22-cv-00166-AJB-MMP on behalf of all others similarly situated, 9 ORDER GRANTING IN PART Plaintiffs, 10 DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO v. COMPEL DEPOSITION OF 11 PLAINTIFF’S FAMILY MEMBERS ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK 12 INDEMNITY COMPANY, 13 [ECF No. 95] Defendant. 14 15 16 17 Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Plaintiff’s 18 Family Members. [ECF No. 95.] Plaintiff has responded in opposition. [ECF No. 96.] 19 For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Compel in 20 part and DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Compel in part. 21 This class action alleges Defendant breached the covenant of good faith and fair 22 dealing by charging excessive auto insurance premiums during the COVID-19 pandemic. 23 [ECF No. 34 at 2.] Defendant seeks to depose three members of Plaintiff Minerva Chavez’s 24 family—Jesus Chavez, Omar Chavez, and Melissa Chavez. [ECF No. 95 at 3.] In doing 25 so, Defendant hopes to obtain information pertaining to Plaintiff’s “legitimate expectation 26 regarding her insurance,” how frequently the insured vehicles were driven during the 27 pandemic, and information about Defendant’s potential defenses, such as failure to mitigate 28 and unjust enrichment. 1 Plaintiff counters that none of these inquiries are relevant because, as the Court 2 acknowledged in the class certification order, this case is based on the reduced aggregate 3 driving risk during the pandemic, not individual rating factors. [ECF No. 83 at 7–9.] 4 Accordingly, all elements of Plaintiff’s claim will be met by “common proof, with no 5 individualized inquiries.” [ECF No. 96 at 4.] 6 Rule 26(b)(1) permits discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any 7 party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the 8 importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ 9 relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the 10 discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed 11 discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” The party seeking to compel discovery has the 12 burden of establishing relevance. Alves v. Riverside County, 339 F.R.D. 556, 559 (C.D. 13 Cal. 2021). “The party opposing discovery then has the burden of showing that the 14 discovery should be prohibited, and the burden of clarifying, explaining, or supporting its 15 objections.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 16 Neither party claims privilege is at issue, so the Court considers relevancy and 17 proportionality. “Relevant” information is simply information “relevant to any party’s 18 claim or defense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). And “relevancy” is construed broadly. Alves, 19 339 F.R.D. at 559. 20 Given relevancy’s low bar, the Court is unwilling to find Defendant’s requested 21 depositions irrelevant at this time. While Plaintiff represents one theory of the case and one 22 damages model, Defendant represents another.1 Plaintiff argues the Court’s class 23 certification order dispositively rejects Defendant’s theory and damages model, but class 24 certification is subject to be “altered or amended before final judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 26 27 1 While Plaintiff and Defendant agree on the elements for a breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim [ECF No. 95 at 5-6; ECF No. 96 at 5], they differ dramatically 28 1 || 23(c)(1)(C). Accordingly, discovery is not the appropriate juncture to limit exploration of 2 ||theories and damages. Because the Court finds at least some “individualized” discovery 3 ||relevant, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to show why the discovery sought should be 4 prohibited. Plaintiff argues these depositions “are noticed for the purpose of harassing 5 || Plaintiff, to intrusively drag her family members into legal disputes, and to delve into her 6 || personal life on a fishing expedition.” [ECF No. 96 at 4.] Plaintiff does not develop these 7 || arguments further, so she does not carry her burden. 8 However, the Court has concerns about proportionality, particularly because all three 9 || proposed deponents are non-parties. See Dart Industries Co., Inc. v. Westwood Chemical 10 || Co., 649 F.2d 646 (9th Cir. 1980) (“While discovery is a valuable right and should not be 11 |/unnecessarily restricted, the ‘necessary’ restriction may be broader when a non-party is the 12 |/target of discovery”); Amini Innovation Corp. v. McFerran Home Furnishings, Inc., 300 13 ||F.R.D. 406, 409 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (‘Concern for the unwanted burden thrust upon non- 14 || parties is a factor entitled to special weight in evaluating the balance of competing needs 15 a Rule 45 inquiry”). To that end, the Court limits each of the three proposed depositions 16 || to one hour in length. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 || Dated: December 19, 2024 19 — Wedkiolt. th. ea HON. MICHELLE M. PETTIT 20 United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28