Gould v. Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company
2:22-cv-00820
| W.D. Wash. | Apr 20, 2023Background
- In January 2022 a storm caused water damage to the Goulds’ home; they allege Allstate underpaid structural, electrical, and additional living expense (ALE) losses and brought breach-of-contract, bad-faith, CPA, IFCA, declaratory, and negligence claims.
- Allstate paid $42,865.57 for repairs; the Goulds contend unpaid damages of roughly $15,531.94 (kitchen) and $10,381.95 (electrical) plus ALE and other damages.
- Major discovery disputes arose: Goulds served written discovery and a Rule 30(b)(6) notice (with topics but a TBD date/time); Allstate declined to designate a 30(b)(6) witness or produce certain documents, citing a pending dispositive motion; Goulds filed two motions to compel; Allstate moved to exclude damages and to stay discovery/protective order.
- Court initially queried diversity jurisdiction; Goulds later supplied Allstate’s state of incorporation and the court found diversity jurisdiction proper and that amount in controversy was not legally certain to be under $75,000.
- The court denied Allstate’s motions to exclude damages and to stay discovery/protective order (largely because Allstate failed to meet-and-confer and did not show good cause), granted Goulds’ second motion to compel fact-witness depositions, and granted-in-part and denied-in-part the first motion to compel written discovery/30(b)(6) relief; the court awarded the Goulds fees/expenses for the second motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of damages for alleged incomplete Rule 26 disclosures | Goulds supplemented disclosures and should be allowed to present damages; Allstate already had much damages info | Allstate argued initial disclosures were inadequate and sought exclusion under Rule 37(c)(1) | Denied: Allstate failed to meet-and-confer; court warned Goulds to provide concrete computations or risk future exclusion |
| Stay of discovery / protective order | Goulds opposed stay as prejudicial and argued Allstate failed to meet-and-confer | Allstate sought stay/protection until resolution of its dispositive/exclusion motions, asserting further discovery unnecessary | Denied: Allstate did not meet-and-confer and failed to show good cause; pending dispositive motions do not automatically stay discovery |
| Rule 30(b)(6) deposition (notice with TBD date/time) | Goulds sought a corporate designee on the noticed topics | Allstate refused, citing pending dispositive motion | Partially denied: notice was not proper (no date/time), so court did not compel at that time but required parties to meet-and-confer and set a proper notice |
| Compel fact-witness depositions and supplemental document production | Goulds sought adjuster depositions and production of underwriting file, non-file communications, manuals, training, financial metrics | Allstate refused attendance and objected to some document requests as irrelevant/overbroad | Court granted depositions and compelled supplementation for underwriting file, communications not in claim file, and financial information; compelled manuals/training; denied broad requests (e.g., full personnel files, initiating documents) where relevance/proportionality not shown |
| Attorney’s fees and sanctions for discovery misconduct | Goulds sought fees for both motions and sanctions for Allstate’s last-minute deposition refusals | Allstate defended its conduct; sought its own relief elsewhere | Court awarded reasonable expenses and fees to Goulds for the second motion (late deposition cancellation), denied fees for the first motion (Goulds’ briefing deficiencies), and declined mutual sanctions (both parties’ discovery shortcomings) |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006) (corporate citizenship rules for diversity jurisdiction)
- Maine Cmty. Health Options v. Albertsons Companies, Inc., 993 F.3d 720 (9th Cir. 2021) (amount-in-controversy standard in diversity cases)
- Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp., 259 F.3d 1101 (9th Cir. 2001) (Rule 37(c)(1) exclusion for untimely/incomplete disclosures)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1988) (standard for "substantially justified" in fee-related contexts)
- Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Dolman, 333 F.2d 257 (9th Cir. 1964) (a party cannot unilaterally avoid deposition obligations by filing motions)
- Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989 (9th Cir. 2001) (court's inherent authority to impose sanctions for bad faith)
- B.K.B. v. Maui Police Dep't, 276 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir. 2002) (bad-faith standard for inherent-power sanctions)
- Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678 (U.S. 1978) (bad faith includes delay or disruption of litigation)
- Queen City Farms, Inc. v. Central Nat'l Ins. Co., 882 P.2d 703 (Wash. 1994) (use of drafting/marketing history as extrinsic evidence when policy language is ambiguous)
- McDonald v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 837 P.2d 1000 (Wash. 1992) (policy interpretation is a question of law when language is unambiguous)