Daniel Hendricks and Colleen Hendricks, individually and as the marital community comprised thereof v. Safeco Insurance Company of America

E.D. Washington

Daniel Hendricks and Colleen Hendricks, individually and as the marital community comprised thereof v. Safeco Insurance Company of America

DecidedMay 19, 2026

Docket2:25-cv-00340

StatusUnknown

This text of Daniel Hendricks and Colleen Hendricks, individually and as the marital community comprised thereof v. Safeco Insurance Company of America (Daniel Hendricks and Colleen Hendricks, individually and as the marital community comprised thereof v. Safeco Insurance Company of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Daniel Hendricks and Colleen Hendricks, individually and as the marital community comprised thereof v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, (E.D. Wash. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 19, 2026 1 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 DANIEL HENDRICKS and No. 2:25-CV-00340-MKD COLLEEN HENDRICKS, 4 individually and as the marital ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ 5 community comprised thereof, REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 6 Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE 7 ORDER 8 v.

9 SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY 10 OF AMERICA, a New Hampshire ECF No. 37 corporation, 11

12 Defendant.

13 14 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs’ request for the Court to order 15 Defendant to produce discovery, see ECF No. 39, and Defendant’s motion for a 16 protective order regarding the discovery requests, ECF No. 37. Following a Court- 17 ordered meet and confer conference, the parties apparently reached agreement on 18 60 of 64 topics. ECF No. 39 at 2. 19 Defendant continues to object and refuse to produce certain discovery in 20 response to Plaintiffs’ requests. ECF No. 37. Defendant (1) agrees to produce its 21 claims manuals (Plaintiffs’ Request Nos. 31, 32, 36, and 37), but seeks a protective 22 order for confidentiality, (2) seeks relief from the disclosure of reserve information 23 in this case, and (3) seeks relief from the disclosure of information regarding other 24 claims and actions during 2025 through the present date. ECF No. 37. This 25 discovery dispute has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge. ECF No. 26 41 & 49. 27 The purpose of discovery is to make trial “less a game of blind man’s bluff 28 and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest 1 practicable extent possible,” United States v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 683 2 (1958), and to narrow and clarify the issues in dispute, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 3 U.S. 495, 501 (1947). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) establishes the scope of discovery 4 and states in pertinent part:

5 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 6 case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 7 amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, 8 the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 9 outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need 10 n ot be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 11 “The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not 12 be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its 13 objections.” Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 14 1998); Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 15 (D. N.J. 1990). 16 A. Claims Manuals 17 Defendant agrees to produce its claims manuals but seeks a protective order 18 for confidentiality. Defendant argues that the insurance claims manuals constitute 19 protected trade secrets pursuant to Woo v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 137 20 Wash.App. 480 (2007) and McCallum v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 149 21 Wash.App. 412 (2009). 22 Plaintiffs respond that Defendant’s request for a blanket protective order 23 should be denied.1 Plaintiffs indicate both Woo and McCallum establish that 24

25 1Plaintiffs argue that at a minimum the Court should require in camera 26 review and narrowly tailor redactions rather than permit a protective order in this 27 case. However, the undersigned finds that redaction of discrete information from 28 the requested materials does not appear feasible. See Johnson v. State Farm Fire 1 insurance claims manuals are not presumptively protectable trade secrets and 2 generalized assertions of confidentiality, internal development, and competitive 3 harm are legally insufficient. 4 The Court notes at the outset that Woo (dealing with trial exhibits) and 5 McCallum (addressing a witness who lacked requisite knowledge) are 6 distinguishable and do not control in the present case. 7 The Court finds that Defendant has made a sufficient showing that the 8 requested materials consist of customized procedures, techniques, processes, 9 methods, systems, and policies developed over many years at great expense to 10 address specific coverages under its insurance policies and that it takes substantial 11 security measures to ensure these materials remain confidential within the 12 company, including the implementation of policies to maintain confidentiality and 13 limit access. See ECF No. 37; ECF No. 34 (Declaration of Safeco Insurance 14 Company of America).2 Public disclosure could put Defendant at a competitive 15 disadvantage. As determined by Judge Pennell in recent orders in this district, the 16 value of these materials is derived precisely from the fact that the information 17

18 & Cas. Co., 2025 WL 3642048 at *3 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 2025); Reed v. State 19 Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2025 WL 3452052 at *4 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 1, 2025). 20 Furthermore, the Court finds that neither in camera review nor redaction is 21 appropriate in a mine run discovery dispute such as this. 22 2Although Plaintiffs’ counsel complains he did not receive the information 23 in this declaration in a timely manner, Defendant’s counsel indicated at the hearing 24 that he informed Plaintiffs’ counsel at a March 19, 2026 discovery conference of 25 the name of a case, and the associated attorney, that included the relevant 26 declaration and that Plaintiffs’ counsel declined to have Defendant furnish him the 27 declaration directly. At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond to 28 Defendant’s assertion in this regard. 1 contained therein is not public; therefore, the private interests in preventing 2 disclosure are strong. See Johnson, 2025 WL 3642048 at *3; Reed, 2025 WL 3 3452052 at *4. The undersigned concludes that Defendant’s claims manuals shall 4 be provided pursuant to a protective order. 5 B. Reserve Information 6 Defendant contends the Court should quash Plaintiffs’ request for any 7 information regarding reserves because Defendant denied coverage based on 8 policy interpretation, not valuation; therefore, information as to reserves is not 9 relevant. See Ingenco Holdings, LLC v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 2014 WL 6908512 at *5 10 (W.D. Wash. 2014) (indicating “where an insurer denies coverage based solely on 11 its interpretation of its policy, loss reserves likely have no relevance”). 12 Plaintiffs respond that reserve information may lead to admissible evidence 13 regarding the insurer’s investigation, evaluation, and decision-making process. For 14 example, reserves set before an inspection or the involvement of an expert may 15 demonstrate whether the insurer conducted any meaningful evaluation before 16 issuing a denial. Reserves set or adjusted after the inspection may reveal 17 inconsistencies between Defendant’s internal assessment and its denial. Plaintiffs 18 suggest that the Court conduct an in camera review of the reserve information; if 19 the reserve remained a nominal amount throughout the claim, production may not 20 be necessary, but if the reserve was set at a meaningful amount or changed as the 21 insurer investigated, it would be relevant. 22 The Court finds that the reserve information has a possibility of leading to 23 admissible evidence in this case; therefore, in camera review is unnecessary. 24 Defendant shall forthwith disclose its reserve information. 25 C.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT May 19, 2026 1 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 3 DANIEL HENDRICKS and No. 2:25-CV-00340-MKD COLLEEN HENDRICKS, 4 individually and as the marital ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ 5 community comprised thereof, REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 6 Plaintiffs, MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE 7 ORDER 8 v.

9 SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY 10 OF AMERICA, a New Hampshire ECF No. 37 corporation, 11

12 Defendant.

13 14 BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiffs’ request for the Court to order 15 Defendant to produce discovery, see ECF No. 39, and Defendant’s motion for a 16 protective order regarding the discovery requests, ECF No. 37. Following a Court- 17 ordered meet and confer conference, the parties apparently reached agreement on 18 60 of 64 topics. ECF No. 39 at 2. 19 Defendant continues to object and refuse to produce certain discovery in 20 response to Plaintiffs’ requests. ECF No. 37. Defendant (1) agrees to produce its 21 claims manuals (Plaintiffs’ Request Nos. 31, 32, 36, and 37), but seeks a protective 22 order for confidentiality, (2) seeks relief from the disclosure of reserve information 23 in this case, and (3) seeks relief from the disclosure of information regarding other 24 claims and actions during 2025 through the present date. ECF No. 37. This 25 discovery dispute has been referred to the undersigned magistrate judge. ECF No. 26 41 & 49. 27 The purpose of discovery is to make trial “less a game of blind man’s bluff 28 and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest 1 practicable extent possible,” United States v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 683 2 (1958), and to narrow and clarify the issues in dispute, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 3 U.S. 495, 501 (1947). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) establishes the scope of discovery 4 and states in pertinent part:

5 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 6 case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the 7 amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, 8 the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery 9 outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need 10 n ot be admissible in evidence to be discoverable. 11 “The party who resists discovery has the burden to show that discovery should not 12 be allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its 13 objections.” Oakes v. Halvorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D 281, 283 (C.D. Cal. 14 1998); Nestle Foods Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 135 F.R.D. 101, 104 15 (D. N.J. 1990). 16 A. Claims Manuals 17 Defendant agrees to produce its claims manuals but seeks a protective order 18 for confidentiality. Defendant argues that the insurance claims manuals constitute 19 protected trade secrets pursuant to Woo v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 137 20 Wash.App. 480 (2007) and McCallum v. Allstate Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 149 21 Wash.App. 412 (2009). 22 Plaintiffs respond that Defendant’s request for a blanket protective order 23 should be denied.1 Plaintiffs indicate both Woo and McCallum establish that 24

25 1Plaintiffs argue that at a minimum the Court should require in camera 26 review and narrowly tailor redactions rather than permit a protective order in this 27 case. However, the undersigned finds that redaction of discrete information from 28 the requested materials does not appear feasible. See Johnson v. State Farm Fire 1 insurance claims manuals are not presumptively protectable trade secrets and 2 generalized assertions of confidentiality, internal development, and competitive 3 harm are legally insufficient. 4 The Court notes at the outset that Woo (dealing with trial exhibits) and 5 McCallum (addressing a witness who lacked requisite knowledge) are 6 distinguishable and do not control in the present case. 7 The Court finds that Defendant has made a sufficient showing that the 8 requested materials consist of customized procedures, techniques, processes, 9 methods, systems, and policies developed over many years at great expense to 10 address specific coverages under its insurance policies and that it takes substantial 11 security measures to ensure these materials remain confidential within the 12 company, including the implementation of policies to maintain confidentiality and 13 limit access. See ECF No. 37; ECF No. 34 (Declaration of Safeco Insurance 14 Company of America).2 Public disclosure could put Defendant at a competitive 15 disadvantage. As determined by Judge Pennell in recent orders in this district, the 16 value of these materials is derived precisely from the fact that the information 17

18 & Cas. Co., 2025 WL 3642048 at *3 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 15, 2025); Reed v. State 19 Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2025 WL 3452052 at *4 (E.D. Wash. Dec. 1, 2025). 20 Furthermore, the Court finds that neither in camera review nor redaction is 21 appropriate in a mine run discovery dispute such as this. 22 2Although Plaintiffs’ counsel complains he did not receive the information 23 in this declaration in a timely manner, Defendant’s counsel indicated at the hearing 24 that he informed Plaintiffs’ counsel at a March 19, 2026 discovery conference of 25 the name of a case, and the associated attorney, that included the relevant 26 declaration and that Plaintiffs’ counsel declined to have Defendant furnish him the 27 declaration directly. At the hearing, Plaintiffs’ counsel did not respond to 28 Defendant’s assertion in this regard. 1 contained therein is not public; therefore, the private interests in preventing 2 disclosure are strong. See Johnson, 2025 WL 3642048 at *3; Reed, 2025 WL 3 3452052 at *4. The undersigned concludes that Defendant’s claims manuals shall 4 be provided pursuant to a protective order. 5 B. Reserve Information 6 Defendant contends the Court should quash Plaintiffs’ request for any 7 information regarding reserves because Defendant denied coverage based on 8 policy interpretation, not valuation; therefore, information as to reserves is not 9 relevant. See Ingenco Holdings, LLC v. Ace Am. Ins. Co., 2014 WL 6908512 at *5 10 (W.D. Wash. 2014) (indicating “where an insurer denies coverage based solely on 11 its interpretation of its policy, loss reserves likely have no relevance”). 12 Plaintiffs respond that reserve information may lead to admissible evidence 13 regarding the insurer’s investigation, evaluation, and decision-making process. For 14 example, reserves set before an inspection or the involvement of an expert may 15 demonstrate whether the insurer conducted any meaningful evaluation before 16 issuing a denial. Reserves set or adjusted after the inspection may reveal 17 inconsistencies between Defendant’s internal assessment and its denial. Plaintiffs 18 suggest that the Court conduct an in camera review of the reserve information; if 19 the reserve remained a nominal amount throughout the claim, production may not 20 be necessary, but if the reserve was set at a meaningful amount or changed as the 21 insurer investigated, it would be relevant. 22 The Court finds that the reserve information has a possibility of leading to 23 admissible evidence in this case; therefore, in camera review is unnecessary. 24 Defendant shall forthwith disclose its reserve information. 25 C. Other Claims and Actions 26 Defendant argues Plaintiffs’ request for unrelated lawsuits and Office of 27 Insurance Commissioner inquiries and complaints regarding losses have nothing to 28 do with the present lawsuit and the Court should thus restrict such discovery to prevent abuse (Defendant claims a search for such information would require at 2|| least 100 hours of review time to identify responsive complaints and lawsuits and 3|| additional time for a witness to prepare to testify regarding the information). ECF No. 37 at 8-10. 5 Counsel for Plaintiffs did not provide the undersigned with any briefing with 6|| respect to this area of inquiry, see ECF No. 39 and 45, and, at the hearing, indicated he was willing to concede the point. The Court, on the present record, 8 || agrees with Defendant’s assertion that the request is overbroad. Defendant shall 9|| not be required to provide information pertaining to other claims and actions. 10 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 11 1. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 37, is 12|} GRANTED. Defendant shall produce its claims manuals to Plaintiffs subject to a 13 || protective order. 14 2. Defendant’s reserve information has a possibility of leading to 15|| admissible evidence in this case; therefore, Defendant shall, within five (5) days 16|| of the date of this order, disclose information regarding its reserves to Plaintiff. 17 3. Defendant shall not be compelled to provide discovery related to other 18 || claims and actions. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to file this Order and provide copies to counsel. 21 DATED May 19, 2026. Claude C Shedim 23 ae dp ALEXANDER C. EKSTROM _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Daniel Hendricks and Colleen Hendricks, individually and as the marital community comprised thereof v. Safeco Insurance Company of America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-hendricks-and-colleen-hendricks-individually-and-as-the-marital-waed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack