*1 The Magistrate Judge has read and considered all papers filed in support of and in opposition to Plaintiff's “Motion to Compel Further Document Production, Interrogatory Answers and Depositions” (“the Motion”), filed March 3, 2023. The previously noticed March 24, 2023 hearing is vacated. The Magistrate Judge has taken the Motion under submission without oral argument.

The Magistrate Judge is mindful that May 10, 2023 is the cut-off for all fact discovery (not just for class certification-related fact discovery). See “Civil Pretrial Schedule and Trial Order,” filed October 27, 2022. The Motion is granted in part and denied in part. To the extent the Motion is granted, the Magistrate Judge has found that the discovery sought is: (1) relevant to the claims or defenses; (2) proportional to the needs of the case; and (3) either nonprivileged or of sufficient importance to overcome the asserted qualified privilege(s) (such as privacy) in light of the “Stipulated Protective Order,” filed February 4, 2022.

The Motion is granted as to Requests for Production Nos. 27, 28 (limited at Defendant's option to documents concerning each policyowner who was also the insured under the policy) and 30 (limited to post-January 1, 2013 correspondence concerning premium payments or lapses in premium payments).

The Motion is also granted as to Interrogatory No. 7 (understood to require information for the beneficiaries described in Request for Production No. 27).

The Motion is denied as to Request for Production No. 29, based on Defendant's claimed failure to retain copies of some of the requested documents and because this request is largely duplicative of Interrogatory No. 7 and thus not proportional to the needs of the case.

The Motion is denied as to Interrogatory No. 6 because this interrogatory is largely duplicative of Request for Production No. 27 and thus not proportional to the needs of the case.

The Motion is also denied as to Interrogatory No. 12 and as to Plaintiff's requests for additional depositions. “Discovery into another party's discovery process is disfavored.” Ashcraft v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., 2018 WL 6171772, at *2 n.2 (D. Nev. Nov. 26, 2018), aff'd, 2021 WL 3017512 (D. Nev. Mar. 24, 2021). Neither the discovery sought in Interrogatory No. 12 nor the discovery sought in the requested depositions is proportional to the needs of the case in light of the discovery already completed. See id.; Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

To the extent the Motion has been granted, Defendant shall serve the required responses and make the required production within twenty-eight (28) days of the date of this Order.