Allstate Insurance Company v. Wang et al, No. 5:2010cv03459 - Document 39 (N.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 20 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Non-Party David Wang to Comply with Subpoenas. See order for details. The 4/5/2011 hearing is VACATED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd on 3/31/2011. (hrllc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/31/2011)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Allstate Insurance Company v. Wang et al Doc. 39 1 ** E-filed March 31, 2011 ** 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 For the Northern District of California NOT FOR CITATION 8 United States District Court 7 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, 12 No. C10-03459 JW (HRL) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY DAVID WANG TO COMPLY WITH SUBPOENAS v. 13 SHUNK HUENG WANG, et al., 14 15 Defendants. ____________________________________/ 16 [Re: Docket No. 20] BACKGROUND 17 Pursuant to this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) filed 18 this declaratory judgment action against three defendants: (1) Shunk Hueng Wang (“Ms. Wang”); 19 (2) Jie Hang Zhao (“Zhao”); and (3) Chuck Chiang (“Chiang”).1 Docket No. 1 (“Complaint”). These 20 three defendants, plus Ms. Wang’s son David Wang (“David”), are embroiled in an underlying tort 21 action in California state court (the “Underlying Tort Action”). In that action, Zhao and Chiang, 22 who are the plaintiffs there, allege that Ms. Wang and David are responsible for injuries they 23 sustained in relation to a January 2, 2010 automobile accident. See Complaint, Ex. A (“Underlying 24 Tort Complaint”). Pursuant to David’s automobile and personal umbrella insurance policies with 25 26 27 28 1 According to the complaint, Allstate is an Illinois corporation with its principal place of business in that state; Ms. Wang is, on information and belief, a resident of France; and both Zhao and Chiang are residents of California. Complaint at 2. Dockets.Justia.com 1 Allstate, Allstate has agreed to defend both Ms. Wang and David in the Underlying Tort Action.2 2 Docket No. 22 (“Jordan Decl.”) ¶ 6. In this federal action, Allstate seeks a declaratory judgment that it owes no duty to defend or 3 David’s umbrella policy. Complaint ¶¶ 16-21. So far, and despite its counsel’s efforts, Allstate has 6 not been able to locate and serve Ms. Wang, who Allstate believes is a resident of France. Docket 7 No. 20 (“MTC”) at 4-5 (citing Docket No. 23 (“Barnes Decl.”) ¶¶ 2-13). Its previous efforts 8 fruitless, Allstate sought to obtain her location from David through two subpoenas: the first required 9 David to produce documents related to Ms. Wang’s location by January 20, 2011, and the second 10 For the Northern District of California indemnify Ms. Wang in the Underlying Tort Action because she is not an “insured person” under 5 United States District Court 4 required David to appear for deposition on February 3, 2011.3 Barnes Decl, Exs. J (the “Document 11 Subpoena”), K (the “Deposition Subpoena”). David did neither. Instead, on January 18, 2011, David and Ms. Wang filed their own suit 12 13 against Allstate (and other defendants) in state court in which they allege that Ms. Wang is entitled 14 to coverage under David’s insurance policies. See Wang, et al. v. Allstate Ins. Co., et al., No. 1-11- 15 cv-191982, Santa Clara County Superior Court (filed January 18, 2011). This new suit, they claimed 16 in a letter to Allstate sent the next day, rendered Allstate’s subpoenas to David in this action moot, 17 so he did not produce any documents or appear for deposition. Barnes Decl., Ex. L; see also id., Exs. 18 M, N. Allstate now moves for an order compelling David to comply with the subpoenas it served 19 20 on him. See MTC. David opposed the motion. Docket No. 27 (“Opp’n”). Pursuant to Civil Local 21 Rule 7-1(b), the Court finds the matter suitable for determination without oral argument, and the 22 April 5, 2011 hearing is vacated. 23 2 24 Allstate agreed to defend Ms. Wang subject to a reservation of its right to dispute coverage under David’s umbrella policy. Jordan Decl. ¶ 6. 3 25 26 27 28 Allstate’s Document Subpoena requested that David produce “ALL DOCUMENTS which reflect, reveal, show, contain or could lead to the discovery of residence address, business address, phone number (including a cellular or mobile number), email address, fax number, location or whereabouts of SHUNK HUENG WANG as of the date of this subpoena.” Barnes Decl., Ex. J. And while Allstate’s deposition subpoena did not specify any particular topics (see Barnes Decl., Ex. K), David has never objected to the vagueness of the subpoena; in fact, based on their papers, it appears that the parties acknowledge that Allstate wants to depose David about (1) his mother’s whereabouts and (2) whether she resided in his household at the time of the underlying automobile accident. 2 1 LEGAL STANDARD 2 Rule 45 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the issuance of a subpoena 3 commanding a non-party to attend and testify; produce designated documents, electronically stored 4 information, or tangible things in that non-party’s possession, custody or control; or permit the 5 inspection of premises. FED. R. CIV. P. 45(a)(1)(A)(iii). The scope of discovery through a Rule 45 6 subpoena is the same as that applicable to the other discovery rules. FED. R. CIV. P. 45 advisory 7 committee’s note (1970). 8 9 In that regard, parties may obtain discovery about any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevance under Rule 26(b)(1) is For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 construed more broadly for discovery than for trial.” Truswal Sys. Corp. v. Hydro-Air Eng’g, Inc., 11 813 F.2d 1207, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 1987). “Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if 12 the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” FED. 13 R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). Discovery is not unfettered, however. A court must limit the extent or frequency 14 of discovery if it finds that: (a) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative or 15 can be obtained from a source that is more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive; (b) the 16 party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity to obtain the information through discovery; or 17 (c) the burden or expense of the discovery sought outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs 18 of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake, 19 and the importance of the discovery in resolving those issues. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(i)-(iii). DISCUSSION 20 21 David was properly served with Allstate’s subpoenas, and he has cited no legal authority for 22 why he should not comply with them. Rather, David presents several practical reasons for why he 23 should not have to do so. 24 His reasons are not compelling. First, Allstate’s subpoenas are not “moot,” as discovery has 25 been stayed in David and Ms. Wang’s new state court suit pending a full hearing on Allstate’s 26 motion to stay that case. See Docket No. 34 (“Martin Decl.”) ¶ 6. Second, Allstate’s subpoenas were 27 timely served and their compliance dates were well within the fact discovery cutoff (July 25, 2011) 28 set by Judge Ware in his scheduling order (Docket No. 16); Allstate did not fail to act diligently, as 3 1 David contends. Third, David’s objections to the document subpoena — contained in a January 20, 2 2011 letter from his counsel to Allstate’s counsel (Barnes Decl., Ex. M) but not mentioned in his 3 opposition brief at all — are all boilerplate, unsupported, and/or groundless.4 Since David has failed 4 to provide any viable reason for why he should not comply with the subpoenas, this Court will grant 5 Allstate’s motion. In a supplemental brief, filed without prior approval of this Court, David also makes two 6 7 requests: (1) that this Court stay this action pending resolution of the Underlying Tort Action; and 8 (2) should this Court require that his deposition proceed, that this Court limit the scope of his 9 deposition to the topic of whether Ms. Wang was a member of his household for purposes of For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 insurance coverage and prevent Allstate from questioning him about Ms. Wang’s whereabouts. 11 Docket No. 35 at 3-4. This Court refuses both of his requests. As for the first one, David has not 12 directed his request to the proper decision-maker; it is for Judge Ware, as presiding judge, to decide 13 whether to stay this action. And as for the second, Ms. Wang’s location is relevant to this action and 14 Allstate has sufficiently demonstrated that, despite its efforts, it has been unable to locate through 15 other means. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 4 David objected to Allstate’s document subpoena on the following grounds: (1) “[t]he time allowed for compliance is insufficient and unreasonable”; (2) “[t]he scope of the demand is overbroad, burdensome, and potentially seeks documents that are subject to legal protection, are confidential, and subject to laws of privacy”; (3) “[t]he demand is overbroad and burdensome, as described above, and harassing, and available to Allstate and its counsel, SNR Denton US LLP, by other means that impose less or no burden on non party David Wang”; (4) “[t]he demand seeks documents and information not reasonably related to the merits and substance of any disputed issue in the subject action”; and (5) “[a]ny need for information about [Ms. Wang], the person about which documents are sought, is moot, as she has brought an action against Allstate in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California (No. 111CV191982) to resolve the coverage issues; her lawsuit includes all the reasonably necessary parties, including those not joined by Allstate in this action.” Barnes Decl., Ex. M. Regarding (1), David had ample time (9 days) to respond to Allstate’s subpoena requesting only documents related to Ms. Wang’s location. Regarding (2), (3), and (5) , David has never explained how the documents requested are confidential or privileged, nor has he persuaded the Court that Allstate — which has been unable to locate Ms. Wang — has any other less burdensome way of learning of her location, especially since discovery has been stayed in the new state court suit. Finally, regarding (4), Ms. Wang’s location is relevant and/or would lead to the discovery of admissible evidence in this case. 28 4 CONCLUSION 1 Based on the foregoing, Allstate’s motion is GRANTED. Wang shall respond to Allstate’s 2 3 document subpoena within 7 days from the date of this order. Wang also shall appear for his 4 deposition within 21 days from the date of this order.5 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 Dated: March 31, 2011 8 HOWARD R. LLOYD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 5 28 Within 7 days from the date of this order, the parties shall meet and confer to schedule a mutually convenient date and time to do so. 5 1 C10-03459 JW (HRL) Notice will be electronically mailed to: 2 Aslan Bananzadeh 3 4 Christopher William Wood Emily S. Nozick Michael A. Barnes 5 Stanley Edward Pond 6 Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program. shawn.bananzadeh@snrdenton.com, adrienne.hankins@snrdenton.com cwood@dbbwlaw.com, kcoughlin@dbbwlaw.com emily.nozick@snrdenton.com, gloria.courtney@snrdenton.com michael.barnes@snrdenton.com, adrienne.hankins@snrdenton.com, cynthia.presley@snrdenton.com, deanna.arthur@snrdenton.com spond@pondlawfirm.com 7 8 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
