*1 Before the Court for decision is Plaintiff Pacific Coast Surgical Center, L.P.’s (“Pacific Coast” or “Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel Production of Documents filed on January 31, 2019 in the Joint Stipulation format pursuant to Local Rule 37-2 (“Motion”). (Dkt. No. 32). In the Motion, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant Scottsdale Insurance Company (“Defendant” or “Scottsdale”) to produce documents in response to a single revised Request for Production No 15 (the “Request”). The Request seeks evaluation information from the personnel file of the individual claims professional who handled Plaintiff's claim. On February 27, 2019, the Court heard oral argument on the Motion and took the matter under submission. (Dkt. No. 38.)

Plaintiff commenced this insurance coverage and bad faith lawsuit on May 10, 2018. (Dkt. No. 1.) The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff sought a defense from Defendant in two separate lawsuits brought by physicians and limited partners of Pacific Coast. (Complaint ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Defendant initially “acknowledged its duty to defendant against the lawsuits but later “reversed it position based on the erroneous and unreasonable contention that these [lawsuits] were not timely tendered.” (Id.) In particular, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant wrongfully chracterized an earlier letter sent by one of the physicians, disputing Plaintiff's right to purchase his limited partner units, as a “demand” such that Defendant construed the tendered lawsuits and the earlier letter as a single Claim that was “first made prior to the inception of the policy in effect at the time of the tender of the Claim, and therefore, was not covered under the terms of the policy.” (Id.) The Complaint asserts claims against Defendant for breach of contract (defense costs, indemnity and independent counsel), tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and declaratory judgment. (Complaint ¶¶ 43-67.)

At issue is Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 15, which, in the meet and confer process, Plaintiff has agreed to limit to “evaluations generated between 2015 and 2017 concerning one individual, Emil Soskin, who was the primary Scottsdale representative responsible for handling Pacific Coast's claim.” (Motion at 7.) The Request, as initially propounded, and Defendant's Response are as follows:

*2 (Id.)

Under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may obtain discovery concerning any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). As amended in December 2015, Rule 26(b)(1) identifies six factors to be considered when determining if the proportionality requirement has been met, namely, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to the 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. (Id.) Relevant information need not be admissible to be discoverable. (Id.)

District courts have broad discretion in controlling discovery. See Hallett v. Morgan, 296 F.3d 732, 751 (9th Cir. 2002). When considering a motion to compel, the Court has similarly broad discretion in determining relevancy for discovery purposes. Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Productions, 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Hallet, 296 F.3d at 751).

Plaintiff contends that the documents sought are relevant to Plaintiff's bad faith claim and proportional to the needs of the case. In particular, Plaintiff argues that information about evaluations of and/or incentives to the claims personnel who handled Plaintiff's file is relevant to “what motivated Defendant's decision; (2) whether the basis for these decisions was reasonable; and (3) whether Scottsdale knew its decisions were unreasonable.” (Motion at 2.) At oral argument, Plaintiff emphasized that the discovery is relevant to determining whether evaluations and/or compensation criteria were in any way based on internal incentives to deny claims. Defendant argues that the disclosure of information in the personnel file of Defendant's claim professional would violate the individual's constitutional right of privacy and is “irrelevant, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” concerning the issues in the case. (Motion at 4.)

As an initial matter, the Court notes that “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” is no longer the standard for determining the appropriate scope of discovery. See Gilead Scis., Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., Case No. 5:13-cv-04057-BLF, 2016 WL 146574, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2016) (“No longer is it good enough to hope that the information sought might lead to the discovery of admissibl evidence. In fact, the old language to that effect is gone. Instead, a party seeking discovery of relevant, non-privileged information must show, before anything else, that the discovery sought is proportional to the needs of the case.”)

Here, after a careful review of the parties’ moving papers, exhibits, and the argument of counsel at the hearing, the Court concludes that the discovery sought in Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 15 – as limited to the individual claim personnel who handled Plaintiff's claim – is both relevant to the claims and defenses at issue and proportional to the needs of the case. In particular, the importance of the bad faith claims asserted in this case, the amount in controversy, and Defendant's exclusive access to the information sought, all weigh in favor of allowing the limited discovery that Plaintiff's seek. Indeed, this type of personnel information has “routinely been found to be relevant and discoverable” in bad faith actions. Gowan v. Mid Century Ins. Co., 309 F.R.D. 503, 512 (D.S.D. 2015); see also American Automobile Ins. Co. v. Hawaii Nut & Bolt, Inc., Civ. No. 15-000245 ACK-KSC, 2017 WL 80248, at *5 (D. Haw. Jan. 9, 2017) (noting “personnel files may reveal an inappropriate reason or reasons for defendant's action with respect to plaintiff's claim or an improper corporate culture.”) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Gowan, while not binding, is persuasive authority that supports an order compelling the discovery sought here.

*3 The Court acknowledges that legitimate privacy concerns are implicated in producing information from an individual's personnel file. However, those privacy concerns can be adequately addressed by the Protective Order already entered in this case. (See Dkt. No. 25.) Moreover, to the extent Defendant argues that the personnel file is likely to contain information “completely unrelated to his duties as a claims adjuster” such as “healthcare benefits, dependent information, disability status, marital status, childcare, benefits, education transcripts,” etc. (see Motion at 13), Plaintiff conceded at oral argument that such information was not relevant or responsive to the bad faith issues and need not be disclosed.

Finally, Defendant has not demonstrated that it would suffer any undue burden or expense if it were required to review this single personnel file for the period 2015-2017 and produce any responsive information.

Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED. Defendant must produce any responsive, nonprivileged information in response to Plaintiff's Request for Production No. 15, as limited to the single personnel file of Emil Soskin, within fourteen (14) business days of the date of this Order. Any privileged information must be listed on a privilege log.

IT IS SO ORDERED.