Elgindy v. AGA Service Company
- Jon Tigar
- 4:20-cv-06304
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 10
In Elgindy v. AGA Service Company, Magistrate Judge Illman granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ discovery request, ordering one response but denying four document requests.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the class action were affected: defendants must provide the specified annual sales-revenue information, while the plaintiffs’ four identified document-production requests were denied.
What happened
Elgindy v. AGA Service Company is a class action in which plaintiffs claim that insurers charged customers undisclosed fees for assistance services when they bought event-ticket and travel insurance. Plaintiffs asked for information about product revenues, service costs, communications with sellers, and marketing agreements.
The court ordered defendants to provide information identifying annual California sales revenues for each insurance product sold during the class period. But it denied plaintiffs’ requests for production numbers 9, 10, 24, and 34 because plaintiffs had not shown that the requests were relevant and proportional to the needs of the case, and because the burden and expense outweighed the likely benefit.
The order did not decide whether defendants violated California law. Magistrate Judge Illman granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ request to compel discovery.
The detailed version
- Elgindy v. AGA Service Company · No. 4:20-cv-06304
- Jon Tigar
- Nov. 2, 2021
Background
Plaintiffs brought a class action alleging three California-law claims: unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent trade practices; false advertising; and common-law fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. They alleged that insurer defendants charged customers additional fees for assistance or concierge services when customers purchased event-ticket and travel insurance through vendors’ websites. According to the allegations described in the order, customers were not adequately told before purchase that they were paying separate fees for those services.
The discovery dispute involved one interrogatory and four requests for production, or RFPs. The interrogatory asked defendants to identify annual sales revenues for each insurance product sold in California during the class period. Plaintiffs argued that defendants had agreed to provide this information by August 28, 2021 but had not done so. The four RFPs sought information about the costs of assistance services, communications with companies selling tickets or travel tickets, and agreements concerning marketing of the insurance and assistance services.
Legal standard
The court explained that a party seeking to compel discovery must show that the requested information is relevant to a claim or defense and that the request is proportional to the needs of the case. Proportionality requires considering factors such as the importance of the issues, the amount in dispute, the parties’ access to information and resources, the value of the discovery in resolving the case, and whether the burden or expense outweighs the likely benefit. Discovery relevance is broad, but it does not permit a burdensome or speculative fishing expedition.
Rulings
The court ordered defendants to provide the requested annual California sales-revenue information “forthwith.” It denied the requests to compel production under RFP Nos. 9 and 10 because plaintiffs had not shown a logical connection between the requested information about the costs of assistance services and their claims, and because the requests were overbroad and burdensome. The court noted that less burdensome methods, such as an interrogatory or request for admission, could have been used.
The court denied the request concerning RFP No. 24 because plaintiffs had not established relevance to a claim or defense and the wording was broader than plaintiffs’ description of the request. It denied the request concerning RFP No. 34 because plaintiffs had not shown a logical connection between the requested marketing agreements and any claim or defense, had not explained what information they wanted from the contracts, and had not established proportionality.
Disposition and scope
The court concluded that the burden and expense of producing the materials sought by the four RFPs grossly outweighed their likely benefit. It therefore granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ request to compel discovery: defendants were ordered to provide the interrogatory information, while the requests concerning RFP Nos. 9, 10, 24, and 34 were denied. The order addressed discovery only and did not decide the merits of plaintiffs’ California-law claims.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.