*1 The Court has read and considered all documents filed in support of and in opposition to “Plaintiff's Motion Compelling Defendant, etc.” (“the Motion”), filed April 6, 2022. The Court has taken the Motion under submission without oral argument. Plaintiff's “Request for Judicial Notice, etc.,” filed April 6, 2022, is granted. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; Porter v. Ollison, 620 F.3d 952, 954-55 n.1 (9th Cir. 2010).

I. Background

In this putative class action, Plaintiff assails Defendant's cancellation of life insurance policies for nonpayment of premiums. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to comply with California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 (“the Statutes”), both of which became effective on January 1, 2013. Plaintiff, assertedly the beneficiary of two policies issued by Defendant prior to January 1, 2013, contends that Defendant failed to comply with the Statutes and wrongfully terminated the two policies for nonpayment of premiums prior to the policyholder's April, 2018 death. On August 30, 2021, the California Supreme Court ruled that the Statutes apply retroactively to policies issued prior to the Statutes' January 1, 2013 effective date. See McHugh v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 12 Cal. 5th 213, 283 Cal. Rptr. 3d 323, 494 P.3d 24 (2021) (“McHugh”).

The original Complaint alleged claims for: (1) breach of contract; (2) declaratory relief; and (3) violation of California's Unfair Competition law, California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. The Complaint defined the putative class as:

On February 10, 2022, prior to the filing of the Motion, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On April 20, 2022, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with leave to amend and ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint on or before May 18, 2022.

II. Analysis

“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

In the subsections below, the Court discusses certain issues pertinent to many of the disputed discovery requests.

A. Information Concerning Life Insurance Policies Issued After January 1, 2013

The recently dismissed Complaint did not define the class to include persons designated as beneficiaries under policies issued after January 1, 2013. Contrary to Plaintiff's arguments, discovery concerning policies issued after January 1, 2013 is not proportional to the needs of the case at the present time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

B. Information Concerning “Subsequent Remedial Measures,” Including Defendant's Practices After McHugh

*2 Contrary to Defendant's apparent arguments, Rule 407 of the Federal Rules of Evidence does not bar discovery concerning “subsequent remedial measures.” See Dupree v. County of Los Angeles, 2010 WL 11597454, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2010) (“even if evidence of subsequent remedial measures is inadmissible at trial for certain purposes under Federal Rule of Evidence 407, that rule does not pertain to pretrial discovery”) (citations omitted); accord, McKeen-Chaplin v. Provident Sav. Bank, FSB, 2015 WL 502697, at *12 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2015); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (“Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”).

C. Information Concerning Defendant's Intent Regarding the Statutes

Discovery concerning Defendant's intent regarding the Statutes (as distinguished from Defendant's conduct in relation to the Statutes) is not proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. Rule Civ. P. 26(b)(1); see also Loughney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 465 F. Supp. 2d 1039, 1041–42 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (“Under California law, a claim for coverage under an insurance policy is a contract claim.”) (citation omitted); Alki Partners, LP v. DB Fund Servs., LLC, 4 Cal. App. 5th 574, 597, 209 Cal. Rptr. 3d 151 (2016) (“A party's purported motive to breach a contract is not relevant to the issue of whether there has been a breach.”).

D. Information Concerning State Court Lawsuit(s)

Defendant represents that there have been no lawsuits against Defendant alleging a violation of the Statutes (other than, perhaps, the Zachary Poe state court case) (“Joint Stipulation, etc.” 53, Ex. 20). Based on this representation, the Court denies the Motion with respect to Deposition Topic No. 1 of the “February 4, 2022 Deposition Notice.”[1]

With respect to the Zachary Poe state court case, Plaintiff's discovery requests, including deposition topics, extend to a great deal of information not concerning the Statutes. In this respect, such requests are overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

With respect to discovery concerning the settlement amount or the settlement agreement in the Zachary Poe state court case, Defendant has represented it does not intend to argue that the settlement would have an preclusive effect on Plaintiff's claims in the present case (“Joint Stipulation, etc.,” Ex. 20). There exists “no broad federal privilege that applies to settlement agreements.” O'Brien v. Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices Co., 2020 WL 5215384, at *4 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2020); see Bd. of Trustees v. Tyco Int'l Ltd., 253 F.R.D. 521, 523 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (“there is no federal privilege preventing the discovery of settlement agreements and related documents”). “Nonetheless, a strong public policy favoring settlement of disputed claims dictates that confidentiality agreements regarding such settlements not be lightly abrogated.” O'Brien v. Johnson & Johnson Medical Devices Co., 2020 WL 5215384 at *4 (citations and quotations omitted); accord, Peters v. Equifax Information Services LLC, 2013 WL 12169355, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2013). “[T]he courts in the Central District of California have generally employed an elevated standard in the settlement context, by placing the burden on the requesting party ... to make a particularized or heightened showing that the settlement information is relevant and likely to lead to admissible evidence.” Zucchella v. Olympusat, Inc., 2020 WL 8483772, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2020). Plaintiff has not made the requisite showing under this standard.

*3 The Court observes that jurisdiction in the present case is based on diversity. The parties fail to address the uncertain issue of whether federal law or California law applies to the discoverability of settlement-related information as a matter of privilege/policy in a diversity case. See Albert D. Seeno Constr. Co. v. Aspen Ins. UK Ltd., 2020 WL 6118497, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 16, 2020) (“the California mediation privilege applies in diversity actions where state law is controlling”) (citation omitted); Fed. R. Evid. 501; Cal. Evid. Code § § 1117 et seq.; but see O'Brien v. Johnson & Johnson Med. Devices Co., 2020 WL 5215384, at *4 (applying federal law to the discoverability of settlement-related information in diversity case). Even so, regardless of whether the Court applies federal or state standards to the discoverability of settlement-related information as a matter of privilege/policy, the result herein would be the same. The discovery Plaintiff seeks concerning the settlement and settlement agreement in the Zachary Poe state court case is not proportional to the needs of this federal case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

E. Interrogatories and Requests for Production Re Defendant's Contentions

To the extent Plaintiff seeks facts or documents supporting Defendant's denials of Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions Nos. 2-6 (requests which appear to concern information related to anticipated opposition to a future motion for class certification), such discovery is not proportional to the needs of the case in the case's current posture. See id. This determination shall be without prejudice to the District Judge's discretion to permit further discovery in the context of a future motion for class certification.

To the extent Plaintiff's discovery seeks facts or documents supporting Defendant's denials of Plaintiff's Requests for Admission which concern policies issued after January 1, 2013, such discovery is not proportional to the needs of the case, as indicated above. See id.

III. Order

Accordingly, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part, as follows:

Requests for Production:

Requests Nos. 6 and 7: Granted, limited to documents and ESI evidencing “measures ... procedures, processes or guidelines” concerning life insurance policies issued in California prior to January 1, 2013.

Requests Nos. 10 and 11: Granted, limited to documents and ESI evidencing whether Defendant complied with the requirements of the Statutes.

Requests Nos. 12, 13 and 15: Denied.

Requests Nos. 21 and 22: Granted, limited to any deposition transcripts, responses to interrogatories and responses to requests for admission concerning the Statutes.

Requests Nos. 23 and 24: Denied as overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case.

Interrogatories:

Interrogatory No. 1: Denied as overbroad and not proportional to the needs of the case.

Interrogatory No. 3: Granted.

Interrogatories Nos. 4 and 5: Denied.

Deposition Topics:

January 25, 2022 Deposition Notice

Topics Nos. 7 and 11: Denied.

“February 4, 2022 Deposition Notice”

Topics Nos. 1 and 3: Denied.

Topic No. 2: Granted, limited to the position(s) reflected in public filings or formal discovery responses in the state court case.

Topic No. 4: Granted, limited to efforts related to life insurance policies issued prior to January 1, 2013.

Document Requests Nos. 1 and 3: Denied.

Document Request No. 2: Granted, limited to those portions of the requested information contained in public filings or formal discovery responses in the state court case.

Document Request No. 4: Granted, limited to efforts related to life insurance policies issued prior to January 1, 2013.

To the extent the Motion is granted (unless the parties agree otherwise), within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this Order, Defendant shall: (a) serve supplemental responses to the written discovery requests, produce the documents and prepare the deponent(s); and (b) serve a privilege log identifying with particularity any documents withheld from production under claim of privilege.

*4 Except as expressly stated herein, the Motion is denied.[2]