Searcy v. Esurance Insurance Company, 2:15-cv-00047

Background

Searcy sued Esurance after a 2012 auto accident, alleging breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and Nevada unfair claims practices; she seeks punitive damages under an amended complaint.
Esurance served objections and moved for a protective order limiting Plaintiff’s Rule 30(b)(6) deposition topics; the parties later stipulated to request a court determination on the motion.
The magistrate judge treated six contested deposition topics (A, C, D, E, F, G) and analyzed relevance, burden, and proportionality under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 and 30(b)(6).
The court found net-worth/financial information generally discoverable for punitive damages but directed the parties to meet and confer on scope/method to reduce burden.
The court limited topics relating to policies/procedures on legal/ethical compliance, HR interfaces, employee goals/incentives, and claim-handling; it denied protection for topic seeking corporate positions on Plaintiff’s claim, but granted protection for inquiry into Esurance’s relationship with Allstate.
The motion was granted in part and denied in part; no attorney fees were awarded to either party.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Topic A: Financial condition/net worth for punitive damages	Financials relevant to punitive damages discovery	Net worth not discoverable absent prima facie showing of punitive claim; burdensome to prepare 30(b)(6) witness	Financial condition generally discoverable; parties must meet-and-confer on limited methods/scope (partial grant/partial denial)
Topic C: Compliance policies and link to incentives	Seeks discovery on adoption/implementation of compliance and claims methods	Limit or protect from overly broad 30(b)(6) testimony	30(b)(6) witness required on Nevada policies/procedures for legal/ethical compliance and impacts on employee incentives (partial grant)
Topic D: How claims handling interfaces with HR systems	Seeks testimony on HR systems recording goals/measurement	Vague, overbroad, irrelevant	Protected: no 30(b)(6) testimony required on HR recording systems (grant)
Topic E: Salary administration and goal setting for staff who handled claim	Seeks personnel records showing goals/achievements/incentives	Vague, overbroad, irrelevant	Limited discovery allowed: 30(b)(6) testimony and inquiry into specific employees’ goals, achievements, incentives as shown by policies and personnel files (partial grant/denial)
Topic F: Handling of Plaintiff’s claim (decisions, offers, payments)	Seeks corporate position on claim handling	Unduly burdensome; information available from individual deponents	Denied protection; 30(b)(6) testimony required on corporate interpretation/position regarding handling of Plaintiff’s claim (denial)
Topic G: Relationship to Allstate (ownership, origins, policies)	Relevance will be shown at testimony; origin of policies may matter	Relationship to Allstate irrelevant to claims	Protected: 30(b)(6) testimony on relationship to Allstate denied as irrelevant (grant)

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Autumn Ridge Condominium Assoc., 265 F.R.D. 323 (N.D. Ind.) (financial condition relevant to punitive damages discovery)
E.E.O.C. v. Cal. Psychiatric Transitions, 258 F.R.D. 391 (E.D. Cal.) (Ninth Circuit has not defined net-worth discovery parameters; majority approach permits discovery without prima facie showing)
Great Am. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Vegas Constr. Co., 251 F.R.D. 534 (D. Nev.) (Rule 30(b)(6) witness preparation requirements)
Louisiana Pac. Corp. v. Money Market 1 Institutional Inv. Dealer, 285 F.R.D. 481 (N.D. Cal.) (corporate deposition must present entity’s position and be subject to cross-examination)
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Miller, 212 P.3d 318 (Nev.) (insurer must equally consider insured’s interests)
Hetter v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 874 P.2d 762 (Nev.) (minority approach requiring specific factual allegations for punitive damages)