Carol Brzezinski, an individual; Michael Brzezinski, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. Allstate Insurance Company; Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant Civil No. 11-cv-2373-CAB (DHB) Signed November 07, 2012 Counsel Robert Hamparyan, Law Office of Robert Hamparyan, Rocky K. Copley, Law Offices of Rocky K. Copley, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiffs. Douglas F. Walters, Walters and Caietti, APC, Joseph E. Foss, Peter H. Klee, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, San Diego, CA, for Defendant. Bartick, David H., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL NON-PARTY PROFESSIONAL DOCUMENT SERVICES, INC. TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA AND FOR AN ORDER FOR CONTEMPT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE SUBPOENA [ECF No. 39] *1 On October 5, 2012, Plaintiffs Carol Brzezinski and Michael Brzezinski filed a motion to compel non-party Professional Document Services, Inc. (“PDS”) to produce documents pursuant to a subpoena issued by Plaintiffs, and for an order for contempt due to PDS' failure to comply with the subpoena (“Motion”). (ECF No. 39.) Neither PDS nor Defendant Allstate Indemnity Company (“Allstate”) filed a response to Plaintiffs' motion. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion is scheduled for November 8, 2012 at 3:30 p.m. However, the Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers and without oral argument in accordance with Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that Plaintiffs' motion for an order compelling PDS to respond to the subpoena shall be GRANTED IN PART although the subpoena shall be MODIFIED as set forth below. Plaintiffs' request that PDS be cited for contempt is DENIED. I. DISCUSSION A. Plaintiffs' Allegations Plaintiffs bring this action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Allstate based on Allstate's alleged unreasonable and bad faith investigation of Plaintiffs' underinsured motorist claim arising from an August 24, 2009 automobile collision. (Complaint at ¶ 8, ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs allege that their vehicle was struck by a vehicle operated by Rodolfo Vasquez, who was insured by Farmers Insurance Company (“Farmers”). (Complaint at ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs brought claims against Mr. Vasquez for bodily injuries and loss of consortium, and Farmers paid its policy limits of $15,000. (Complaint at ¶ 8.) Plaintiffs further allege that on August 31, 2010, they made a policy limits demand upon Allstate pursuant to Plaintiffs' underinsured motorist coverage in their Allstate policy, and that the demand provided Allstate with thirty days to accept the demand. (Complaint at ¶¶ 9-10.) Plaintiffs provided Allstate with medical authorizations to obtain a copy of Plaintiff Carol Brzezinski's medical records and bills. (Complaint at ¶ 10.) Plaintiff Carol Brzezinski offered to submit to a medical examination by a medical expert selected by Allstate and to appear at a deposition. (Complaint at ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs contend that Allstate failed to conduct a reasonable investigation upon receipt of Plaintiffs' demand. (Complaint at ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs further allege that the value of Plaintiff Carol Brzezinski's claim exceeded the Allstate underinsured motorist policy limits, and that Allstate unreasonably and wrongfully refused to pay Plaintiffs. (Complaint at ¶ 11.) B. Plaintiffs' Motion Plaintiffs seek the production of business records from non-party PDS in order to support their theory that Allstate failed to conduct a good faith investigation into Plaintiffs' claims. Specifically, Plaintiffs dispute Allstate's contention that in December 2010 Allstate made a request for PDS to prepare subpoenas to obtain Plaintiff Carol Brzezinski's medical records. (Motion at 1:26-2:2.)[1] However, when Allstate contacted PDS on May 9, 2011, PDS allegedly stated that it had no record of any such order. (Motion at 2:3-4.) Plaintiffs contend that Allstate never requested PDS to subpoena the medical records, and that this evidence demonstrates Allstate's failure to conduct a prompt and diligent investigation into Plaintiffs' claims. (Motion at 2:5-9.) *2 On August 2, 2012, Plaintiffs served PDS with a subpoena duces tecum requiring that PDS produce the following documents on August 15, 2012: All documents reflecting the requested orders, the date of service of the subpoenas, the date the records were provided, the date the documents were downloaded by or delivered to the ordering party and the history notes for each job order. All electronic data reflecting orders, deliveries, downloads of records or other information pertaining to Work Order Nos. S18795-01 et seq. and Invoice Nos. S20594-01 et seq. (ECF No. 40 at 4-5.) PDS failed to produce documents in response to the subpoena or challenge the subpoena by way of objections or a motion to quash or for protective order. (Motion at 2:16-18.) C. Analysis Assuming the requested documents actually pertain to any request by Allstate that PDS obtain or subpoena Plaintiff Carol Brzezinski's medical records, such documents are indeed relevant to Plaintiffs' position that Allstate unreasonably delayed its investigation into Plaintiffs' underlying claims. However, Plaintiffs' subpoena to PDS is vague, ambiguous and overbroad. There is no mention of Plaintiff Carol Brzezinski. Nor is there mention of Allstate. Rather, the description of the requested documents vaguely refers to “Work Order Nos. S18795-01 et seq. and Invoice Nos. S20594-01 et seq.” Plaintiff has provided no evidence that this work order or invoice is in any way connected with Allstate or Plaintiffs. Moreover, Plaintiffs' use of the phrase “et seq.” would require PDS to produce not only this work order and invoice but also an ambiguous and unknown number of work orders and invoices that sequentially follow the specified documents. The Court notes that neither PDS nor Allstate challenged the subpoena by filing a motion to quash. Moreover, aside from the subpoena's flaws as discussed above, Plaintiffs have demonstrated that an order compelling compliance with the subpoena is appropriate. Thus, the Court finds good cause to modify the subpoena in order to clarify the documents that PDS shall be required to produce. Specifically, on or before November 21, 2012, PDS shall be required to produce the following documents and electronically stored information: All documents relating to any and all requests from August 2010 to June 2011 by Allstate Indemnity Company or its affiliates concerning medical records of Plaintiff Carol Brzezinski. The production shall include all documents and electronically stored information reflecting requested orders, the date of service of any subpoena(s) for Plaintiff Carol Brzezinski's medical records, the date that such medical records were received by PDS and/or Allstate Indemnity Company or its affiliates, and the history notes for each job order. To the extent PDS' Work Order No. S18795-01 or Invoice No. S20594-01 relates to Allstate's request for medical records of Plaintiff Carol Brzezinski, PDS shall produce such documents and any subsequent documents relating to such medical records. II. CONCLUSION AND ORDER Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs' motion to compel non-party PDS to produce documents pursuant to Plaintiffs' subpoena is GRANTED IN PART, subject to the Court's modification of the subpoena as set forth herein. PDS shall comply with the subpoena, as modified, on or before November 21, 2012. *3 Plaintiffs' request that PDS be cited for contempt is DENIED without prejudice to Plaintiffs' renewing their request in the event PDS fails to comply with this Order. Plaintiff shall serve PDS with a copy of this Order on or before November 9, 2012. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: November 7, 2012. Footnotes [1] Page numbers for docketed materials cited in this Order refer to those imprinted by the Court's electronic filing system.