Sierrapine v. Refiner Products Manufacturing, Inc.
275 F.R.D. 604
E.D. Cal.2011Background
- Plaintiff SierraPine seeks broad discovery into a policyholder’s release (the Travelers Agreement) between RPM and Travelers concerning defense/indemnity related to SierraPine's underlying breach of contract and warranty suit.
- Discovery was reopened by Judge England for limited purposes to examine the policyholder’s release, with a September 2, 2011 deadline for completion.
- Travelers is not named as a defendant in the operative complaint, and no claims premised on fraudulent conveyance arise from the policyholder’s release.
- Plaintiff served third set of interrogatories (Nos. 16–18) and fourth set of document requests (Nos. 14–20) seeking insurance agreements and related information.
- Defendant RPM/Travelers produced some documents but objected; no privilege log accompanied the responses, and Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) disclosures were incomplete.
- The court ultimately denied compelled discovery as irrelevant under Rule 26(b)(1), but ordered supplementation of Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) disclosures by August 19, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether policyholder’s release discovery is relevant under Rule 26(b)(1). | Discovery into insurance arrangements could illuminate settlement value. | Requests seek asset information not tied to claims or defenses; premature pre-judgment discovery. | Denied; not relevant to claims/defenses; premature pre-judgment discovery. |
| Whether Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) requires production of insurance agreements for disclosure. | Travelers Agreement should be considered an insurance agreement warranting production. | The agreement is not an ongoing insurance contract; not within 26(a)(1)(A)(iv). | Denied; not required to disclose ongoing insurance; only provide insurance agreements under 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) if applicable. |
| Whether defendant should supplement Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) disclosures. | Supplementation would reveal insurance obligations and aid settlement/trial decisions. | Disclosures were based on information located; need a diligent, complete investigation. | Ordered to supplement by August 19, 2011; diligent, complete inquiry required. |
| Whether post-judgment discovery under Rule 69(a)(2) is a proper vehicle for asset/ability-to-pay information. | Pre-judgment discovery is appropriate to assess settlement and options. | Post-judgment discovery is the proper vehicle; pre-judgment asset discovery is generally not relevant. | Pre-judgment discovery not allowed; post-judgment discovery is proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Norton v. Superior Court, 24 Cal.App.4th 1750 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (insufficient to establish federal relevance; insurance settlement terms not automatically discoverable)
- U.S. for the Use and Benefit of P.W. Berry Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 158 F.R.D. 161 (D. Or. 1994) (pre-judgment discovery of financial status generally not allowed)
- Moon v. SCP Pool Corp., 232 F.R.D. 633 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (protects limits on broad discovery of nonparties and privilege concerns)
- Excelsior College v. Frye, 233 F.R.D. 583 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (distinguishes between actual insurance policies/indemnities and settlement agreements)