Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR [6] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [7] WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 LINH WANG, CASE NO. C24-0447-JCC [10] Plaintiff, ORDER [11] v. [12] ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, [13] Defendant. [16] This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. [17] 66) of the Court’s order granting Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 50), along with the [18] parties’ submissions as to Rule 37(a)(5)(A) expenses (Dkt. Nos. 81, 92). As described herein, the [19] motion for reconsideration (Dkt. No. 66) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and $5,935 [20] in expenses in bringing the motion to compel (Dkt. No. 50) is awarded to Plaintiff. [21] Regarding the reconsideration motion (Dkt. No. 66), Defendant asserts it has produced all [22] materials in its care, custody, and control responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests. (See [23] generally id.) Thus, Defendant seeks clarification on what remains. (See generally id.) Defendant [24] since produced the certification at issue in Plaintiff’s motion (Dkt. No. 50). (See Dkt. No. 77 at [25] 5.) The remainder (training information and manuals along with Toolkit information), which are [26] outstanding, are addressed below. 1 As to training information and manuals, the Court ordered Defendant to produce “all 2 claims manuals, reference materials, training materials, and complete training logs as specified in 3 Plaintiff’s requests (Dkt. No. 50 at 4–7).” (Dkt. No. 59 at 7) (emphasis added). Defendant 4 contends that (1) it already produced training logs for its adjusters, supervisors, and the manager 5 involved in Plaintiff’s insurance claim; (2) it need not produce training materials, i.e., “learning 6 modules,” unrelated to UIM claim adjusting or handling, or materials considered by its 7 employees after Plaintiff’s UIM arbitration demand of August 16, 2022; and (3) it already 8 produced all relevant claims handling manuals and that has no UIM-specific manuals. (Dkt. No. 9 76 at 2–3; see Dkt. Nos. 67 at 2, 78 at 1–2.) 10 First, regarding the training logs, Plaintiff points out that what Defendant’s produced to 11 date still lacks information on certain employee training activities engaged in prior to 2022. (Dkt. 12 No. 74 at 2.) Yet their claim investigation began in 2017. (Id.) Thus, training logs produced 13 must include activities from 2017 (or upon later hire) through August 16, 2022.1 Second, 14 regarding training material, because the burden of production is low, and given Defendant’s 15 recalcitrance to date in producing discoverable information, the Court errs on the side of 16 production. See, e.g., GTE Directories Serv., Corp. v. P. Bell Directory, 135 F.R.D. 187 , 192 17 (N.D. Cal. 1991); Clinton v. California Dept. of Corrections, 2009 WL 1617811 , slip op. at 1 18 (E.D. Cal. 2009). Thus, all material(s) referenced in produced training logs must be 19 produced, irrespective of whether the material seemingly relates to UIM/UM claims. Third, 20 regarding claims manuals, Plaintiff notes that Defendant did finally produce a “Casualty Claims 21 Handling Manual” but not referenced materials, including a “‘Claim Operations Manual, Claim 22 Bulletins, and Knowledge Library,’” along with superseded claim handling manuals including 23 the “‘Claim Policies, Practices, and Procedures (C-PPP) Manual,’ the ‘Bodily Injury Adjusting 24 Manual,’ the ‘Adjuster’s Casebook Manual,’ ‘Claim Core Process Redesign (CCPR) 25 implementation and training manuals,’ ‘subsequent Claim Core Process Redesign (CCPR) [26] 1 The Court declines Defendant’s request for in camera review of such logs, (Dkt. No. 76 at 3), as all are subject to the current protective order. (See Dkt. No. 19 at 2–3.) 1 manuals’ and ‘Next Gen manuals.’” (Dkt. No. 74 at 4; see Dkt. No. 75 at 2–3.) These materials 2 must also be produced (to the extent not yet produced2). 3 As to third-party Toolkit materials, the Court ordered Defendant to “request permission 4 from ‘Toolkit’ to produce the relevant materials, and then produce those materials if granted 5 permission.” (Dkt. No. 59 at 7.) Instead, Defendant reiterates its position that Toolkit is a third6 party website containing “various statutes, regulations, forms, etc. [sic] from most, if not all, 7 states to assist claim handlers in accessing third-party information.” (Dkt. No. 76 at 4.) But this 8 does not absolve Defendant of its obligation pursuant to the Court’s order. To be clear, relevant 9 materials contained in Toolkit information are those accessible and available to Defendant and 10 its employees while adjusting and/or otherwise handling Plaintiff’s insurance claim. It is not 11 clear from Defendant’s submissions whether the information produced to date satisfies this 12 requirement. (See Dkt. Nos. 67 at 2, 68 at 5–8.) Thus, Plaintiff must affirmatively request this 13 information from Toolkit (if it does not presently possess it) and then produce it or provide 14 documentation demonstrating that Toolkit is unwilling or unable to provide such 15 information to Plaintiff. 16 Finally, regarding attorney fees, (see Dkt. Nos. 81, 92), the Court finds Defendant’s 17 conduct here not substantially justified. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). It further finds 18 Plaintiff’s fees, $5,935.00, reasonable. (See Dkt. No. 80 at 4); see, e.g., Hoglund v. Sher-Ber, 19 Inc., 2008 WL 5427793 , slip op. at 2 (W.D. Wash. 2008) (awarding Rule 37(a)(5)(A) fees based 20 on work spent “preparing the motion to compel, the supporting declaration, and the proposed 21 order.”). Nevertheless, the Court finds no basis to award amounts to a charitable organization 22 (rather than to Plaintiff). 23 Accordingly, Defendant is ORDERED to complete the production referenced above 24 within ten (10) days and remit the attorney fees noted above to Plaintiff within 30 days. 25 // [26] 2 On reply, Defendant points out some of these materials have been produced. (See Dkt. Nos. 67 at 2; 76 at 3.) 1 DATED this 10th day of September 2025. A [4] John C. Coughenour 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE