*1 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Daniel Kogan and Christopher Hewitt's (collectively “Plaintiffs”) motion to compel (Dkt. 51). The Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby grants in part and denies in part the motion for the reasons stated herein.

On January 6, 2015, Christopher Hewitt (“Hewitt”) was involved in a car accident. Dkt. 1-2 (“Comp.”) ¶ 1.9. Hewitt's car sustained heavy damage, and the repairs cost more than $35,000. Id. Hewitt's car was worth less after it was repaired than before the accident. Id. On January 23, 2015, Daniel Kogan's (“Kogan”) car was damaged in a hit-and-run. Id. ¶ 1.8. Kogan's car was worth less after it was repaired than before the accident. Id.

Both Plaintiffs had automobile insurance policies with Defendant Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Co. (“Allstate”). Id. ¶ 1.2. Plaintiffs sought underinsured motorist coverage under their Allstate policies. Id. ¶¶ 1.10, 4.3. Allstate did not compensate Plaintiffs for the diminished value of their cars. Id. ¶¶ 1.10–1.11, 4.3.

On August 4, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint against Allstate in Pierce County Superior Court. See Comp. Plaintiffs claim that Allstate has continuously failed to adjust losses to include diminished value. Id. ¶¶ 1.6–1.7. Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class:

Id. ¶ 5.3. Plaintiffs allege that the number of class members will be about 2,518 and the average damages will be about $1,460 per class member. Id. ¶ 2.4. Based on these numbers, Plaintiffs allege that the amount in controversy is $3,676,280. Id. Plaintiffs assert a single breach of contract claim. Id. ¶¶ 6.1–6.5. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and statutory attorney's fees under RCW 4.84.015. Id. ¶ 7.1.

On August 7, 2015, Allstate removed the action to this Court under the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Dkt. 1. Allstate's notice of removal asserts that CAFA requirements are satisfied. See id. With respect to the amount in controversy, Allstate alleges that there is at least $5,407,840 in controversy. Id. at 8.

On September 8, 2015, Plaintiffs moved to remand. Dkt. 15. On November 9, 2015, the Court denied the motion. Dkt. 22. In relevant part, the Court held that Allstate had met its burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000. Id. at 5–6.

*2 On August 31, 2016, the Court established a deadline of November 30, 2016 for the close of class fact discovery and March 31, 2017 for Plaintiffs to file a class certification motion. Dkt. 50.

On December 5, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to compel jurisdictional discovery. Dkt. 51. On December 22, 2016, Allstate responded. Dkt. 53. On December 30, 2016, Plaintiffs replied. Dkt. 56. On January 3, 2017, Allstate filed a request to strike and surreply to keep the streak alive of a party filing a surreply for every motion in this case. Dkt. 58.

A. Motion to Strike

Allstate moves to strike (1) Plaintiffs’ reply because it exceeds the page limit and (2) Plaintiffs’ misstatements and case law presented for the first time in the reply. Dkt. 58 at 1. In the alternative, Allstate requests that the Court consider its brief responses to Plaintiffs’ reply. Id. First, exclusive of the cover page and two sentence conclusion, Plaintiffs’ reply contains six pages of content. See Dkt. 56. Thus, the Court denies the motion on this ground.

Second, Allstate moves to strike Plaintiffs citations to two cases that were presented for the first time in reply. Dkt. 58 at 4. The Court agrees that Plaintiffs improperly presented this new material in a reply brief. Therefore, the Court grants the motion on this issue and will not consider United Inv'rs Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004), Twin City Fire Ins. Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 124 F.R.D. 652, 653 (D. Nev. 1989), or any arguments related to these two cases.

Third, the Court denies Allstate's alternative argument to consider the additional responses on the merits because it violates the rules of procedure. Local Rules, W.D. Wash. LCR 7.

The parties are informed that this Court is not usually a stickler for striking arguments and generally rules in favor of being fully informed on all positions and authorities when considering an issue. However, the parties’ streak of three surreplies on three motions is too much, and the Court must deviate from the Court's level of tolerance to ensure the parties respect the rules of procedure and canons of due process.

B. Motion to Compel

“On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).

In this case, Plaintiffs move to compel discovery regarding the class size because Allstate has objected to the requests. First, Allstate objects on the grounds that numerosity has been conceded. Dkt. 53 at 5. While this concession is helpful for consideration of class certification, it lacks merit as to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, Allstate's objection is not well founded.

Second, Allstate objects on the grounds that the discovery is unnecessary because no class has been certified. Id. at 6–7. This objection is also without merit because the discovery relates to subject matter jurisdiction, not class certification.

Third, Allstate cites to numerous authorities for the proposition that burdensome jurisdictional discovery is contrary to Congress’ intent in enacting the CAFA. See, e.g., Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 692 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court agrees, but Allstate fails to provide any authority that is factually similar to this case. The jurisdictional facts in this case are “conservative extrapolations” and, even then, the amount in controversy barely exceeds the jurisdictional minimum. Dkt. 22 at 5. On the other hand, in Wang v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, 680 F. Supp. 2d 1122 (N.D. Cal. 2010), the defendant submitted facts showing that the potential number of accounts meeting the class definition was 177,023 and the necessary number to meet the jurisdictional minimum was 100. Id. at 1124. The court found that defendant had sufficiently shown that it was more likely than not that the jurisdictional minimum would be met and denied plaintiffs’ request for additional discovery. Id. Therefore, in light of the state of this case, Allstate's argument on this issue is unpersuasive.

*3 Fourth, Allstate claims that the discovery would be disproportional to the needs of the case. Dkt. 53 at 10. The Court agrees that a manual, file-by-file review of 4,286 claim files at a cost of approximately $231,444 is disproportional. The Court, however, has faith in the ability of the attorneys to develop a less expensive and time consuming alternative. For example, Michael Kane randomly sampled 100 files, which provided a high confidence level for the class size of 4,286 claims. Dkt. 16 at 28–29. If Plaintiffs pick 100 files and Allstate picks 100 files, then a file-by-file review would be significantly reduced and the results would convey some accurate extrapolation across the 4,286 files. Moreover, the parties can work together to implement exclusions that Allstate is able to implement electronically across the files. Accordingly, the Court grants a limited protective order at this time and orders the parties to meet and confer on this issue. If the parties reach an impasse after good faith attempts to resolve this issue, they may contact the Court with a joint status report or a brief LCR 37 joint motion specifically addressing the impasse. A fully briefed motion to compel or protective order will not be necessary.

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ motion to compel (Dkt. 51). is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Dated this 13th day of February, 2017.