2:20-cv-00421
W.D. Wash.Aug 19, 2022Background
- Plaintiffs (Benanav et al.) allege Healthy Paws misrepresented that pet insurance premiums would only rise with veterinary costs, not due to a pet-age-at-anniversary factor; claims include consumer-protection statutes from WA, CA, IL, and NJ.
- Plaintiffs purchased policies between 2011–2017; the complaint is the third amended pleading after prior dismissals addressing Rule 9(b) and the filed-rate doctrine.
- Discovery dispute: Healthy Paws moved to compel fuller responses to Interrogatories 2, 3, 5, and 6 and Request for Admission (RFA) 2; parties submitted a joint LCR 37 statement and argued before the court.
- Interrogatory 2 seeks itemized monthly premiums Plaintiffs say exceeded filed rates and supporting documents; Interrogatory 3 seeks each factor Plaintiffs contend was inappropriately included in premiums; Interrogatory 6 and RFA 2 seek narrower factual admissions/dates.
- Court granted the motion in part: Plaintiffs must supplement/amend responses to Interrogatories 2, 3, and 6 and RFA 2 (with some supplements due within seven days and full supplementation by the close of fact discovery Sept. 13, 2022); motion as to Interrogatory 5 was denied as moot.
- Court held contention interrogatories may be deferred until discovery is substantially complete but required Plaintiffs to provide all non-expert factual information they currently possess, correct identified factual inaccuracies, and state if certain answers require expert analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interrogatory 2: identify each monthly premium charged in excess of filed rates and supporting docs | Responses are contention-based and premature; Plaintiffs will supplement after fact and expert discovery and review of third-party productions | Plaintiffs have (or can access) sufficient data now and must identify specific months/amounts to show good-faith basis for complaints | Granted in part: Plaintiffs must supplement with any non-expert factual information they already possess and correct inaccuracies; if only experts can compute certain items, say so; full responses due by close of fact discovery |
| Interrogatory 3: identify each factor improperly included in premium calculations (time, amount, reason) | May defer full answer until substantial discovery; will supplement and already clarified that “pet age” means pet age at anniversary | Plaintiffs’ answers are vague (must specify pet-age-at-anniversary vs enrollment age, date ranges, amounts) | Granted in part: Plaintiffs must supplement to state pet age at anniversary within 7 days, and provide full responses (or state expert-only limits / efforts to obtain info) by close of fact discovery |
| Interrogatory 6: date ranges when plaintiffs considered/enrolled in alternative insurance | Plaintiffs will update answers to the best of recollection | Healthy Paws says some plaintiffs’ supplements omitted date-range info | Granted in part: specified plaintiffs (Gage, Purvey, Kowalski) must supplement date-range info within 7 days |
| RFA 2: admit Healthy Paws did not expressly state before purchase that premiums would never increase due to pet-age-at-anniversary | Plaintiffs admitted their policy documents did not state that but declined to admit whether Healthy Paws made no express statements | Request asks about express statements by Healthy Paws, not policy language; Plaintiffs must either admit, deny, or explain inability to admit | Granted in part: Plaintiffs must amend RFA response to comply with Rule 36 within 7 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Trump, 329 F.R.D. 262 (W.D. Wash. 2018) (party resisting discovery bears burden to show it should be disallowed)
- U.S. ex rel. O’Connell v. Chapman Univ., 245 F.R.D. 646 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (identifying classic contention interrogatories)
- In re Convergent Techs. Sec. Litig., 108 F.R.D. 328 (N.D. Cal. 1985) (defining contention-interrogatory type that asks for all facts supporting a contention)
- Roberts v. Heim, 130 F.R.D. 424 (N.D. Cal. 1989) (information not reserved to experts must be disclosed; if only experts can answer, state that)
- Gorrell v. Sneath, 292 F.R.D. 629 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (party must make reasonable effort to respond but is not required to conduct extensive research)