LAWANDA D. SMALL, Individually, and on Behalf of the Class, Plaintiff, v. ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, a Minnesota Corporation, Defendant Case No. 2:20-CV-01944-TJH (KES) United States District Court, C.D. California Filed July 13, 2022 Counsel Zoë K. Wilhelm (SBN 305932), zoe.wilhelm@faegredrinker.com, FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, 1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500, Los Angeles, California 90067, Tel: (310) 203-4000, Fax: (310) 229-1285 Stephen J. Jorden (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), Stephen.jorden@faegredrinker.com, FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, One Constitution Plaza, 5th Floor, Hartford, Connecticut 06103, Tel: (860) 509-8929, Fax: (860) 760-6535 Dawn B. Williams (Admitted Pro Hac Vice), dawn.williams@faegredrinker.com, FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, 1500 K Street NW, Suite 1100, Washington, D.C. 20005, Tel: (202) 230-5226, Fax: (202) 842-8465, Attorneys for Defendant, ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA Scott, Karen E., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL *1 Date: June 14, 2022 Time: 10:00 AM PST Place: 350 West First St. Los Angeles, CA 90012 Complaint Filed: Feb. 27, 2020 Trial Date: None Set Plaintiff Lawanda Small's Motion to Compel (“Motion”) came for hearing before this Court on June 14, 2022. The Court, having considered the Motion and all papers in support thereof and in opposition thereto, as well as the pleadings, exhibits, and records in this matter, and oral argument of the parties, and for good cause shown, finds that Plaintiff's Motion should be DENIED. Plaintiff first moves to compel further responses to Interrogatories 17, 19, 20 and 21, which request specific data for life insurance policies that Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America (“Allianz Life”) issued both before and after the January 1, 2013 effective date of California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 (the “Statutes”). The Court sustains Allianz Life's objections to producing information about life insurance policies issued after January 1, 2013. Plaintiff's discovery requests seeking information about policies issued after 2013 are overbroad and encompass matters that are not relevant to the claims or defenses in this case. The allegations in the Complaint pertain to the application of the Statutes to pre-2013 policies. In particular, the Small policy was issued before 2013 and plaintiff alleges that Allianz Life did not apply the Statutes to all policies issued before 2013. Allianz Life's discovery responses state that the company interpreted the Statutes as applying to policies issued after January 1, 2013. Allegations about errors in the way Allianz Life implemented changes to its practices and procedures to comply with the Statutes as to policies issued after 2013 would present different claims and injuries than those being pursued by Plaintiff. Plaintiff also moves to compel further responses to the same interrogatories with respect to life insurance policies that were not “issued or delivered” in California, such as policies that were “administered” in California. The Court sustains Allianz Life's objections for information related to policies that were not issued or delivered in California. The Statutes explicitly state that they apply to policies “issued or delivered in this state.” If the Legislature had intended for the Statutes to apply more broadly, it could have expressly stated as such in the language of the Statutes, but it did not do so. Plaintiff also moves to compel further responses to Interrogatories 17, 19, 20 and 21, to require Allianz Life to provide personal contact information of putative class members. The Court sustains Allianz Life's objections to pre-certification discovery of policyholder, insured, and beneficiary contact information. The Court finds that Plaintiff's stated reasons for requesting this information – inter alia, to prove that absent class members received (or failed to receive) the notices required by the Statutes – is not consistent with her theory of the case or the allegations in the Complaint; thus Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden of demonstrating a need for this information pre-certification. Other issues relating to Plaintiff's request for contact information, including security concerns raised by Allianz Life, will be deferred until after the Court has ruled on Plaintiff's motion for class certification. *2 Plaintiff moves to compel further responses to Request for Production number 25, “All DOCUMENTS reflecting any form of written notice of any kind provided to any reinsurer of any life insurance product potentially affected by the California Supreme Court decision in McHugh v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 12 Cal. 5th 213 (2021).” The Court sustains Allianz Life's objections as the request is overly broad in seeking all communications, regardless of subject matter or date, about any such policies. Plaintiff finally moves to compel further responses to Request for Production number 29, 30 and 31, which seek information about the reserves that Allianz Life sets for its life insurance policies, including how they are set and the protocol for releasing them. The Court sustains Allianz Life's objections, as that information is not relevant to any of the issues in the case and is not proportional to the needs of the case. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Documents is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.