Wollam v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company

Background

Cynthia Wollam, on behalf of herself and a proposed class, alleges that Transamerica failed to comply with California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72, which concern notice and grace-period requirements, beginning January 1, 2013. The parties disputed whether Transamerica had to produce contact information for owners of relevant insurance policies and for beneficiaries of relevant policies when the insured had died.

The parties represented that they had agreed Transamerica would produce specified information about responsive policies in response to Interrogatories Nos. 17, 19, and 20 and Request for Production No. 34. That production would include policies that lapsed or terminated because premiums were not paid.

Wollam said contact information was needed to develop evidence concerning the requirements for class certification, including whether the proposed class was sufficiently numerous, whether common questions existed, whether her claims were typical, and whether she could adequately represent the class. Transamerica argued that Wollam had not shown that the class-certification requirements were met or that the discovery was likely to support her class allegations. It also argued that she might instead be seeking contact information to recruit additional or replacement class members.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that district courts have broad discretion over discovery before a class is certified. It stated that the Ninth Circuit does not require a plaintiff to prove the class-certification requirements or show that the requested discovery is likely to substantiate the class allegations before obtaining class-member contact information. The court also noted that discovery must be relevant, nonprivileged, and proportional to the needs of the case.

The court found that Wollam’s plausible allegations—including allegations about Transamerica’s standardized policies and procedures—and Transamerica’s anticipated defenses were sufficient to justify pre-certification discovery, so long as the discovery was not unduly burdensome.

The court distinguished between the two groups of contact information. Transamerica maintained electronic records that could be queried for policy owners’ contact information. By contrast, contact information for beneficiaries of policies involving deceased insureds was not maintained in the same way and would require a manual records search. Transamerica conceded that providing policy owners’ contact information was not unduly burdensome but said producing beneficiary information could be burdensome, depending on the number of responsive policies.

Order

The court required Transamerica to produce, as soon as practicable, contact information for owners of the relevant insurance policies responsive to Wollam’s specified discovery requests. The production was subject to resolving disputes about procedures governing the production and use of that information.

The court deferred deciding whether Transamerica must produce contact information for beneficiaries of responsive policies involving deceased insureds. By November 4, 2022, the parties were ordered to provide the number of such policies and an estimate of the time and effort needed to locate and produce the beneficiaries’ contact information.

The court also ordered the parties to confer about privacy protections and procedures for producing and using the contact information. By November 11, 2022, they were to submit their respective positions or a proposed agreement for the court’s review and approval. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi entered the order on October 21, 2022.