CBKZZ Investment LLC v. Renaissance Re Syndicate 1458 LLoyds

Background

This matter concerns a first-party insurance dispute over alleged storm damage to the roof of the Casa Rosa Hotel. Defendants said they denied the insurance claim after an engineer determined that the roof had no covered damage. The plaintiff then sued to recover the cost of replacing the roof.

Discovery Dispute

Defendants filed a letter motion to compel discovery concerning a roof-replacement estimate that they called a purported bid from DM Roofing. Defendants alleged that the document had been altered to appear to come from DM Roofing, rather than being a pre-suit estimate prepared by the plaintiff’s public adjuster. They pointed to the document’s use of Xactimate, an incorrect policy number, a date before the reported loss, and a DM Roofing logo appearing only on the cover page.

Defendants subpoenaed DM Roofing for records and a deposition. Daniel Mora, identified as DM Roofing’s representative, reportedly testified that DM Roofing had no records concerning the property and that he had not seen the purported bid before receiving the subpoena. He speculated that a former employee, Gabriel Martinez, might have created it, but the letter states that Mora acknowledged he had no personal knowledge supporting that speculation.

Defendants asked the court to compel the plaintiff to identify the person who created and submitted the purported bid and to produce communications between DM Roofing and the plaintiff’s counsel concerning the property. They argued that the information was relevant to the document’s authenticity, the plaintiff’s credibility, the public adjuster’s credibility, and the claimed value of the property damage. They also argued that any privilege objection had been waived because the plaintiff had not asserted privilege or identified withheld materials as required by the federal discovery rules.

Court’s Action

The court gave the plaintiff until October 5, 2023, to respond and scheduled a conference for October 6, 2023, through Microsoft Teams. The court required lead trial counsel to attend and stated that it reserved judgment in the meantime. It also directed lead trial counsel to investigate the issue and make a full corrective disclosure immediately if any discovery error or oversight had occurred.

The provided text does not contain a final ruling granting or denying the motion to compel. It therefore records a scheduling and case-management action, not a decision on the discovery dispute’s merits.