Recology, Inc. v. Berkley Regional Insurance Company
- Phyllis Hamilton
- 4:20-cv-01150
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Recology v. Berkley, Judge Hamilton denied both motions to compel discovery because the parties had not adequately met and conferred.
Recology, Inc. and Berkley Regional Insurance Company, the parties to the insurance coverage case; the ruling governed their discovery process.
What happened
Recology, Inc. v. Berkley Regional Insurance Company is an insurance coverage case involving losses Recology says resulted from former employees’ kickback schemes with customers. Berkley served interrogatories and document requests about the schemes, Recology’s losses, and its insurance coverage position.
Berkley asked the court to require complete answers and production of nonprivileged documents. Recology objected that the interrogatories exceeded the limit, some answers could be found in already-produced documents, and some requests sought protected or burdensome information. The parties exchanged letters and held one phone call before Berkley filed the motions.
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied both motions because the parties had not adequately discussed all their disputes before seeking court intervention. She directed them to meet and confer promptly and said Berkley could renew the motions through a joint discovery-dispute letter if the disagreements remained unresolved.
The detailed version
- Recology, Inc. v. Berkley Regional Insurance Company · No. 4:20-cv-01150
- Phyllis Hamilton
- May 12, 2021
Background
Recology, Inc. brought an insurance coverage action against Berkley Regional Insurance Company. Recology is described as a resource recovery company that disposes of waste. It seeks insurance coverage for losses allegedly caused by former employees’ kickback schemes involving customers.
Berkley served interrogatories and requests for production covering issues including the alleged kickback schemes, Recology’s claimed loss, and Recology’s coverage position. Recology served objections and responses after receiving multiple extensions.
The Discovery Disputes
Recology objected to the interrogatories on several grounds. It argued that the number of interrogatories exceeded the 25-interrogatory limit in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(a)(1); that, under Rule 33(d), Berkley could determine some answers by examining documents Recology had already produced, including proofs of loss; and that some requests sought expert opinions or information protected by privacy or investigatory privileges.
Recology objected to the document requests on the grounds that they sought privileged or private information and were disproportionate to the needs of the case. Berkley argued that Recology’s objections were insufficiently specific, that Recology had not timely produced responsive documents or a privilege log, and that its responses were general or formulaic.
The parties exchanged three meet-and-confer letters and held one telephone call. The court found that the February 23 call appears to have been limited largely to issues raised in Berkley’s first letter. That letter did not address Recology’s two Rule 33 objections. The court also found that the parties had not meaningfully attempted to resolve several other objections, including those concerning investigatory privilege, privacy, expert opinions, and undue burden.
Ruling
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 generally requires a party seeking an order compelling discovery to certify that it made a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court also noted that the district’s local rule permits discovery motions only after the parties have met and conferred about all disputed issues.
The court concluded that Berkley’s motions were premature because the required meet-and-confer process had not been completed. It therefore denied the motion to compel answers to interrogatories and denied the motion to compel production of documents.
The court directed the parties to meet and confer promptly and in good faith, including by videoconference, before filing another request to compel discovery. If the disputes continued, Berkley could renew its motions by working with Recology to file a joint discovery-dispute letter of no more than five pages, organized by discovery request and stating each side’s position and proposed resolution. The court also stated that it would enter the parties’ proposed stipulated protective order and directed the parties to proceed with document production they had agreed to make before conferring further about remaining document issues.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.