Minerva26

Olson v. World Fin. Grp. Ins. Agency

2024 WL 5440742 (N.D. Cal. 2024)

October 28, 2024

Cousins, Nathanael M., United States Magistrate Judge

Download PDF

To Cite List

Summary

World Financial Group (WFGIA) filed a motion for reconsideration of a previous discovery order that denied document discovery from before January 22, 2024. WFGIA presented new evidence in the form of a deposition from July 11, 2024, but the Court ultimately denied the motion, finding that the new evidence did not establish good cause for additional discovery and was not proportional to the needs of the case.

SANDRA OLSON and GLOBAL FINANCIAL IMPACT, LLC, Plaintiffs,
v.
WORLD FINANCIAL GROUP INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, Defendant

Case No. 24-cv-0477 EJD (NC)

United States District Court, N.D. California

Filed October 28, 2024

Counsel

Navid Yadegar, Navid Soleymani, Yadegar, Minoofar & Soleymani LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Douglas Stephen Tilley, Matthew Brooks Borden, BraunHagey & Borden LLP, San Francisco, CA, Kelsie A. Docherty, Pro Hac Vice, Molly Jamison, Pro Hac Vice, BraunHagey & Borden LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff Sandra Olson.
Navid Yadegar, Navid Soleymani, Yadegar, Minoofar & Soleymani LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Douglas Stephen Tilley, Matthew Brooks Borden, BraunHagey & Borden LLP, San Francisco, CA, Kelsie A. Docherty, Pro Hac Vice, BraunHagey & Borden LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff Global Financial Impact, LLC.
John Samuel Gibson, DLA Piper LLP (U.S.), Los Angeles, CA, Alice Adu Gyamfi, Pro Hac Vice, Emma L. Jones, Pro Hac Vice, DLA Piper LLP (U.S.), New York, NY, Ellen Elizabeth Dew, Pro Hac Vice, Meagan Marie Pace, Pro Hac Vice, DLA Piper LLP (U.S.), Baltimore, MD, Julie Gryce Cooker, DLA Piper LLP (U.S.), San Diego, CA, Michael David Hynes, Pro Hac Vice, DLA Piper LLP (U.S.), Short Hills, NJ, Stephen H. Barrett, Pro Hac Vice, DLA Piper LLP (U.S.), Philadelphia, PA, Tom Lin, Troy A. Valdez, DLA Piper LLP (U.S.), San Francisco, CA, for Defendant.

Cousins, Nathanael M., United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING WFGIA'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION ON DOCUMENT DISCOVERY DATE RANGE

*1 World Financial Group (WFGIA) moves for reconsideration of part of the Court's May 31, 2024, discovery order denying document discovery from before January 22, 2024, the date upon which WFGIA terminated Eric Olson's agency agreement. ECF 79. The specific discovery order challenged was issued at ECF 179 in Case No. 24-cv-480 EJD, on the same day as the May 31, 2024, discovery hearing.[1] The Olsons oppose reconsideration. ECF 106. WFGIA replied. ECF 110.

The Court previously granted WFGIA's motion for leave to file the motion for reconsideration. ECF 101. The proffered basis for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 and Civil Local Rule 7-9(b)(1) is that WFGIA has shown “a material difference in fact or law exists” from the May 31 hearing. N.D. Cal. Civil L-R 7-9(b)(1). The new facts presented by WFGIA are the July 11, 2024, deposition testimony of Eric Olson. ECF 79, pp. 14-44. This is unquestionably new information that was not presented at the time of the May 31 hearing. The remaining questions are whether these new facts are a “material difference” and whether they establish good cause for the Court to grant additional discovery to WFGIA. The ultimate relief WFGIA seeks is to compel document discovery from the Olsons for the period September 1, 2023, to January 22, 2024. ECF 110.

To understand the May 31, 2024, discovery hearing and order, the reader needs to go back earlier into the docket. The discovery dispute arose after the trial judge, District Court Judge Edward J. Davila, found good cause to permit “limited expedited discovery.” ECF 64, 67 in Case No. 24-cv-480 EJD. Why was the discovery sought by WFGIA “limited”? Three reasons: (1) that was what WFGIA asked for at the preliminary stage of the case. ECF 17 in Case No. 24-cv-480 EJD; (2) it was sought in connection with WFGIA's temporary restraining order motion and anticipated motion for a preliminary injunction. ECF 64 in Case No. 24-cv-480 EJD; and (3) the Court ordered the responses to be “expedited” with responses due within five days of service. ECF 67 in Case No. 24-cv-480 EJD.

Then, on March 26, 2024, I denied WFGIA's first discovery motion to compel, finding that its discovery requests were overly broad, compound, and not sufficiently tethered to the claims and defenses in the case. ECF 92 in Case No. 24-cv-480 EJD. WFGIA objected to Judge Davila. Judge Davila affirmed. ECF 117 in Case No. 24-cv-480 EJD.

WFGIA then returned for a third bite at the apple, arguing for a broader date range for its document discovery. I held a discovery hearing on May 31. I found that “WFGIA has not demonstrated a basis for reconsideration. Additionally, the Court finds that an expanded discovery date range is not proportional to the needs of the case and conflicts with the ‘limited expedited’ discovery authorized by Judge Davila.” ECF 179 in Case No. 24-cv-480 EJD.[2]

*2 What is the new information that WFGIA asks the Court to consider? Eric Olson testified at his deposition on July 11, 2024, and a portion of the transcript is filed at ECF 79 in Case No. 24-cv-477 EJD. WFGIA asserts that the deposition shows Mr. Olson “admitted to asking active WFGIA agents to log into the private, password-protected MyWFG portal and send him WFGIA's confidential information to which he did not otherwise have access!” ECF 110 at p. 2. The Olsons, on the other hand, interpret the Olson testimony in a different way. “They do not relate to pre-termination conduct. They do not describe confidential materials. They do not render pre-termination conduct something that the Court could address in a preliminary injunction.” ECF 106 at p. 4.

I have reviewed the Eric Olson deposition transcript. ECF 79. I agree with the Olsons that the transcript does not evidence pre-termination conduct and does not describe confidential materials. From a factual perspective, the “new” evidence is not materially different.

And from a legal perspective the “new” evidence does not change my analysis of proportionality “to the needs of the case” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1). What are the needs of this case? The presiding District Judge has ordered “limited expedited” discovery in connection with a motion for preliminary injunction. ECF 64, 67 in Case No. 24-cv-480 EJD. The limited discovery is now complete (but for this motion for reconsideration) and WFGIA's motion (ECF 123) is filed and set for hearing. I find that the “importance of the discovery in resolving the issues” on the injunction is speculative; and that the “burden or expense” of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

For these reasons, having considered the new evidence presented by WFGIA, I deny the motion for reconsideration. Any party may object to this order to the District Court Judge within 14 days under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Footnotes

[1]

The Court subsequently consolidated the cases. ECF 213, Case No. 24-cv-480 EJD. All ECF docket references in this order will be to the N.D. Cal. 24-cv-477 EJD case unless otherwise specified.

[2]

The May 31, 2024, discovery hearing and order addressed additional discovery issues that are not challenged in the present motion for reconsideration so need not be repeated.