Jones et al v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America, No. 5:2013cv02390 - Document 55 (N.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 34 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/18/2014)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Jones et al v. Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of America Doc. 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 LINCOLN JONES, JR., et al., Plaintiffs, 12 v. 13 14 TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. 16 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 5:13-cv-02390-LHK-PSG ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL (Re: Docket No. 34) Before the court is Plaintiffs Lincoln Jones, Jr., Muyesser Nile Jones and 17 18 Project Sentinel, Inc.’s motion to compel production of unredacted documents and underlying files 19 related to non-party insured landlords. 1 Defendant Travelers Casualty Insurance Company of 20 America opposes. The parties appeared for a hearing this morning. 2 After considering the 21 arguments, the court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion, as explained below. 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 See Docket No. 34. 28 2 See Docket No. 54. 1 Case No. 5:13-cv-02390-LHK-PSG ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL Dockets.Justia.com I. BACKGROUND 1 Plaintiffs own and operate two small apartment buildings located on the same block – 2 3 Cody Way – in San Jose, California. 3 Plaintiffs insure the Cody Way apartments, as required by 4 their mortgage lender. 4 Their tenants include participants in the Housing Choice Voucher Program 5 (“Section 8”) operated by the Housing Authority of the County of Santa Clara. 5 In February 2012, 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Plaintiff Muyesser Jones purchased an “Apartment Pac” property and liability policy for the Cody Way apartments from Travelers. 6 In August 2012, a visitor to the Cody Way apartments slipped and fell and Mrs. Jones notified Travelers of a potential claim. 7 While investigating that potential claim, Travelers learned that the Joneses rented the Cody Way apartments to Section 8 11 tenants. 8 On November 16, 2012, Travelers notified the Joneses that Travelers would not renew its 12 policy for the Cody Way apartments effective February 1, 2013. 9 The Joneses obtained 13 replacement insurance with premiums above than the non-renewed Travelers policy. 10 14 15 16 17 18 3 See Docket No. 13 at ¶ 11. 19 4 See id. at ¶ 13. 20 5 See id. at ¶ 12. 21 6 See id. at ¶ 12. 22 7 See id. at ¶ 12. 23 8 See id. 24 9 See Docket No. 34-2, Ex. 1 at 1. During our investigation [of] your 8/22/2012 slip and fall liability claim, the underwriting department was advised that the property has section 8 tenants. Governmental subsidized housing is contrary to our underwriting guidelines and thus ineligible for our apartment program. As a result, we are non-renewing your policy effective 2/1/2013. Please contact your agent to arrange your insurance coverage after 2/1/2013. 25 26 27 10 28 See Docket No. 13 at ¶ 18. 2 Case No. 5:13-cv-02390-LHK-PSG ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL Plaintiffs bring claims for (1) violation of the federal Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) 11 and (2) 1 2 violation of California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). 12 Plaintiffs’ prayer seeks 3 equitable relief, attorney’s fees and compensatory and punitive damages. 13 4 5 II. LEGAL STANDARDS A. 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 Motion to Compel The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide parties “may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” 14 “Once the moving party establishes that the information requested is within the scope of permissible discovery, the burden shifts to the party opposing discovery.” 15 “An opposing party can meet its burden by demonstrating that the information is being sought to delay bringing the case to trial, to embarrass 12 or harass, is irrelevant or privileged, or that the person seeking discovery fails to show need for the 13 information.” 16 14 15 11 See 42 U.S.C. § 3601. 16 12 See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12900. 17 13 See Docket No. 13 at 11-12. 18 14 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense--including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any documents or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons who know of any discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C). 15 Khalilpour v. CELLCO P-ship, Case No. 3:09-cv-02712-CW-MEJ, 2010 WL 1267749, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2010) (citing Ellison v. Patterson-UTI Drilling, Case No. V-08-cv-67, 2009 WL 3247193 at *2 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 23, 2009) (“Once the moving party establishes that the materials requested are within the scope of permissible discovery, the burden shifts to the party resisting discovery to show why the discovery is irrelevant, overly broad, or unduly burdensome or oppressive, and thus should not be permitted.”). 16 Id. (citing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 353 n.17 (1978) (noting that “discovery should be denied when a party’s aim is to delay bringing a case to trial, or embarrass or harass the person from whom he seeks discover”)). 3 Case No. 5:13-cv-02390-LHK-PSG ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 1 B. FHA and FEHA The FHA and FEHA prohibit discrimination against “any person in the terms, conditions, 2 3 or privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling, or in the provision of services or facilities in 4 connection therewith, because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 17 5 FEHA also prohibits discrimination on the basis of age. 18 The Ninth Circuit applies Title VII-like 6 discrimination analysis in examining FHA discrimination claims. 19 A plaintiff can establish an 7 FHA discrimination claim under a theory of either disparate treatment or disparate impact. 20 8 III. DISCUSSION 9 Plaintiffs seek (1) unredacted documents revealing the identity of other landlords subject to United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 the same Travelers’ insurance practices and (2) files reflecting Travelers’ treatment of similarly 12 situated landlords who were subject to the same Travelers’ insurance practices. Although 13 Travelers argues that the names, addresses and underwriting files of non-party insureds have no 14 relevance to the claims asserted by Plaintiffs – it is undisputed that subsidized, public or 15 government-funded complexes are presumptively ineligible for Travelers’ Apartment Pac 16 policies – Travelers has the discretion to grant authority to agents on a case-by-case basis to 17 18 underwrite insurance to apartment complexes with Section 8 tenants. 21 The requested discovery 19 17 42 U.S.C. § 3604(b); see also Cal. Gov’t Code § 12955. 20 18 See Cal. Gov’t Code § 12955. 21 19 See Gamble v. City of Escondido, 104 F.3d 300, 304 (9th Cir. 1997). 22 20 See id. at 304-05. 23 21 See Docket No. 18 at 4. Although apartment complexes that include Section 8 tenants are not automatically eligible under the Travelers/Express issuance process, they are not categorically ineligible for Apartment Pac policies. An agent can request an exception to the Apartment Pac underwriting guidelines. Travelers has discretion to grant agents authority on a case-by-case basis. If Travelers determines that a complex containing Section 8 tenants may be an acceptable risk for Apartment Pac, it can extend authority to the agent to submit the on-line application. Alternatively, if the property does not appear to be an acceptable risk for Apartment Pac, the agent would still be free to submit an application for a different Travelers product, other than Apartment Pac. 24 25 26 27 28 4 Case No. 5:13-cv-02390-LHK-PSG ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 1 will probe the circumstances in which Travelers exercised that discretion in the context of 2 Section 8 housing applications. 22 In particular, the discovery may shed light on whether decisions 3 were driven “based in large part on stereotypes unsupported by objective fact” running afoul of 4 federal and California law. 23 5 6 7 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 The fact that Travelers has already identified numerous situations in which it non-renewed, investigated or refused to insure landlords with Section 8 or other subsidized tenants distinguishes this case from Dawson v. New Life Cmty. Servs., Inc. 24 In Dawson, this court refused to compel the defendant to provide discovery regarding witnesses to other “similar” events because there was no evidence that any “similar” events had occurred. 25 11 In addition, the fact that this action is brought by two individuals and a non-profit 12 organization rather than on behalf of a class or by a government agency does not limit plaintiffs’ 13 right to broad discovery. For example, in Dunn v. Midwestern Indem., a Dayton, Ohio couple sued 14 several insurance companies after they were denied homeowners insurance, alleging that the denial 15 16 was the result of unlawful redlining on the basis of race in violation of the FHA. 26 The insurers 17 objected to the plaintiffs’ request for the production of computer tapes containing information 18 about past and present policy holders in the Dayton area, characterizing it as “class action-type 19 22 20 21 22 See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2554 (2011) (recognizing “that, ‘in appropriate cases,’ giving discretion to lower-level supervisors can be the basis of Title VII liability under a disparate-impact theory—since ‘an employer’s undisciplined system of subjective decisionmaking [can have] precisely the same effects as a system pervaded by impermissible’” intentional discrimination) (quoting Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 990-91 (1988)). 23 Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604, 610-11 (1993). 24 Case No. 5:13-cv-0881-PSG, 2013 WL 6512052 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2013). 25 Id. at *2. The problem with Dawson’s requests is that they are supported by no evidence, or even allegations, suggesting that any such similar incidents exist. Without support, her search for similar incidents constitutes no more than a fishing expedition. In light of the burden that a more fulsome response to the interrogatories could impose on the employees in question, the court is unwilling to permit such an expedition. 23 24 25 26 27 28 26 88 F.R.D. 191, 192-93, 196 (S.D. Ohio 1980). 5 Case No. 5:13-cv-02390-LHK-PSG ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL
]]>
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.
