Sixty-01 Association of Apartment Owners v. Public Service Insurance Company

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: February 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:22-cv-01373
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 SIXTY-01 ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT CASE NO. C22-1373-JCC OWNERS, 10 ORDER 11 Plaintiff, v. 12 PUBLIC SERVICE INSURANCE 13 COMPANY, et al., 14 Defendants. 15

16 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s current motion to compel (Dkt. No. 17 252). Having thoroughly considered the briefing and the relevant record, the Court DENIES the 18 motion for the reasons explained herein. 19 Plaintiff, when it originally so moved, sought an order compelling Defendant Public 20 Service Insurance Company (“PSIC”) to produce certain expert files, claims-handling 21 documents, and claims-related communications. (See Dkt. No. 252 at 2–5). “Parties may obtain 22 discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 23 proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The Court has broad discretion to 24 decide whether to compel disclosure of discovery. Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General 25 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002). 26 However, following supplemental production, Plaintiff seeks a subset of what it 1 originally moved for. (See Dkt. No. 266 at 1–6.) 2 First, as to the expert files, Plaintiff now asks the Court to compel production solely of 3 presentation materials by PSIC expert GailAnn Stargardter (as referenced in her curriculum 4 vitae) regarding Washington bad faith insurance litigation. (See Dkt. No. 266 at 6.) This request 5 is not well taken. The subpoena deuces tecum, upon which Plaintiff bases its request, sought 6 “[d]ocuments and [c]ommunications related to your work on [this case].” (Dkt. No. 253-2 at 25) 7 (emphasis added). The presentations Plaintiff now seeks are not related to the case. Therefore, 8 they are not responsive and not subject to production. 9 Second, as to the claims-handling documents, Plaintiff now asks for (1) PSIC’s written 10 claim manual applicable to this case and (2) case related e-mails and documents involving PSIC 11 President Jeffrey Fratantaro.1 (See Dkt. No. 266 at 3–5.) But PSIC has provided the Court with 12 evidence that (1) no such manual exists and that (2) all responsive non-privileged 13 communications and documents involving Mr. Fratantaro have been produced. (See Dkt. No. 278 14 at 1–2.) Plaintiff’s current speculation otherwise is not sufficient to support its request. See 15 United States v. Mincoff, 574 F.3d 1186, 1200 (9th Cir. 2009) (“[M]ere speculation about 16 materials in the [opponent’s] files [does] not require the district court to make those materials 17 available.”) 18 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is DENIED. 19 // 20 // 21 // 22 //

23 1 To the extent Plaintiff seeks to now compel the production of similar materials involving other 24 PSIC personnel, (see Dkt. No. 266 at 5), no such request was included in its motion, (Dkt. No. 252 at 3–5). It is untimely to do so on reply. See, e.g., Delgadillo v. Woodford, 527 F.3d 919, 930 25 n.4 (9th Cir. 2008) (“arguments raised for the first time in petitioner’s reply brief are deemed waived”); United Specialty Ins. Co. v. Shot Shakers, Inc., 2019 WL 199645, slip op. at 1 (W.D. 26 Wash. 2019) (same). 1 DATED this 10th day of February 2025. 2 3 4 A 5 6 7 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26