Opinion
C20-1508JLR
09-13-2021
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. RANDY LINDQUIST, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE
JAMES L. ROBART UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
I. INTRODUCTION
Before the court is Defendant Randy Lindquist's motion to continue Plaintiff Allstate Indemnity Company's (“Allstate”) motion for partial summary judgment. (2d Cont. Mot. (Dkt. # 71); see Reply (Dkt. # 83).) Allstate opposes the motion. (Resp. (Dkt. # 81).) The court has considered the parties' submissions, the relevant portions of the record, and the applicable law. Being fully advised, the court GRANTS Mr. Lindquist's motion to continue.
No. party has requested oral argument (see 2d Cont. Mot. at 1; Resp. at 1), and the court concludes that oral argument would not be helpful to its disposition of the motion, see Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(b)(4).
II. BACKGROUND
Allstate filed this lawsuit against Mr. Lindquist and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (collectively, “Defendants”) on October 13, 2020. (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) Allstate seeks declaratory relief establishing that Mr. Lindquist's homeowner's insurance policy does not cover harm to his property that was damaged in a fire on December 25, 2019. (See id. ¶¶ 6.1-6.3.) On November 12, 2020, less than a month after initiating the case, Allstate moved for partial summary judgment. (MSJ (Dkt. # 8).) Mr. Lindquist moved for a continuance of the summary judgment motion on November 19, 2020. (Cont. Mot. (Dkt. # 12).) On December 3, 2020, the court granted a continuance in order to allow Mr. Lindquist a reasonable opportunity to discover facts relevant to Allstate's summary judgment motion, which the court re-noted to February 5, 2021. (12/3/20 Order (Dkt. # 20) at 5-6.) After full briefing, the court denied Allstate's summary judgment motion. (3/5/21 Order (Dkt. # 52) at 21.)
Thereafter, a dispute arose between the parties regarding which parts of Mr. Lindquist's claim file, if any, must be produced in discovery. (See 8/16/21 Order (Dkt. # 73).) After receiving briefing, holding a hearing, and conducting in camera review of the disputed records (id. at 2), the court ordered Allstate to produce certain documents that had previously been redacted or withheld and to conduct a review of other documents previously withheld in their entirety (id. at 11).
While that order was pending, Allstate moved again for partial summary judgment on August 12, 2021, arguing that partial summary judgment is appropriate because Mr. Lindquist “misrepresented and concealed material facts to Allstate and that he failed to cooperate in the investigation of the claim by failing to report losses on the property.” (2nd MSJ (Dkt. # 71) at 1.) As before, Mr. Lindquist has moved to continue Allstate's summary judgment motion because he “has not had a reasonable opportunity to investigate or conduct discovery regarding the important issues raised in Allstate's motion.” (2d Cont. Mot. at 2).
III. ANALYSIS
Mr. Lindquist argues that the court should defer ruling on Allstate's motion for partial summary judgment because he “has not had a reasonable opportunity to investigate or conduct discovery regarding the important issues raised in Allstate's motion.” (2d Cont. Mot. at 2.) The court agrees.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), if the nonmoving party “shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(d). To prevail on a Rule 56(d) motion, the party opposing summary judgment “must make ‘(a) a timely application which (b) specifically identifies (c) relevant information, (d) where there is some basis for believing that the information sought actually exists.'” Emps. Teamsters Loc. Nos. 175 & 505 Pension Tr. Fund v. Clorox Co., 353 F.3d 1125, 1129 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting VISA Int'l Serv. Ass'n v. Bankcard Holders of Am., 784 F.2d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir.1986)). Moreover, unless the party requesting a continuance “has not diligently pursued discovery of the evidence, ” their request “should be granted almost as a matter of course.” Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. The Asssiniboine & Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation, 323 F.3d 767, 773-74 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Mr. Lindquist meets this standard.
To begin, Mr. Lindquist's motion is timely. He filed the request only seven days after Allstate filed its summary judgment motion (see 2d Cont. Mot.; 2d MSJ) and well in advance of the discovery deadline (see Sched. Order (Dkt. # 30)). Mr. Lindquist's motion also identifies specific categories of records that he contends are necessary to resolve the issues presented in Allstate's summary judgment motion. (See 2d Cont. Mot. at 3-4 (citing Knudsen Decl. (Dkt. # 75) Exs. A-F; Reply at 2.) These include: a complete claim file from Allstate; documents and communications from Allstate Agent and third-party defendant, Melody Grondahl, “related to Mr. Lindquist's Lake Forest Park property”; Ms. Grondahl's agency agreement with Allstate; insurance applications submitted by Mr. Lindquist to Allstate for both his Lake Forest Park and Edmonds properties; and any “insurance policy or coverage documents potentially available to satisfy a judgment against Grondahl.” (Reply at 2; see also Knudsen Decl. Ex. C at 1.) Mr. Lindquist also seeks to depose Ms. Grondahl. (2d Cont. Mot. at 4; Knudsen Decl. Ex. A at 2 & Ex. C at 1 (documenting efforts by counsel to schedule Ms. Grondahl's deposition).)
Rule 56(d) requires the party requesting a continuance to demonstrate its need through “affidavit or declaration.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Mr. Lindquist asserts that his motion “is based on the Declaration of Kathryn Knudsen and the records and files herein.” (See 2d Cont. Mot. at 2.) The Knudsen Declaration avers that the records attached as exhibits are true and correct copies but includes no other factual statements. (See Knudsen Decl. (Dkt. # 75) ¶¶ 3-7.) Nevertheless, the court finds that the exhibits attached to the Knudsen Declaration, together with the motion, suffice to meet the requirements of Rule 56(d). See Choi v. Reed Inst., 822 Fed.Appx. 572, 574 (9th Cir. 2020) (finding that a district court acted within its discretion when it considered “counsel's affirmation [and] the memorandum of law in support of the motion” in ruling on a motion for continuance).
Mr. Lindquist asserts that the parties may soon bring before the court the question of whether “claim documents created after October 13, 2020” are discoverable. (2d Cont. Mot. at 3.) The court strongly encourages the parties to resolve this dispute amicably and by reference to the court's earlier order addressing this issue (see 8/16/21 Order). If such resolution is not possible, however, the parties should raise it with the court as soon as possible.
Mr. Lindquist argues that this information will help answer what Allstate and its agent “knew about [him] and his properties at the time of the loss.” (2d Cont. Mot. at 6; Reply at 3.) That inquiry is relevant to Allstate's motion for partial summary judgment, which puts at issue whether Mr. Lindquist misrepresented where he was living and the condition of the Edmonds property (2nd MSJ at 11-12), and whether Allstate had independent knowledge bearing on the alleged misrepresentations (see Id. at 2 (“Allstate was unaware the Subject Property had been vacated, ” “was deteriorating, ” and had experienced “ongoing damages”)). Finally, Mr. Lindquist has provided a basis for believing that the information sought exists. (See, e.g., Knudsen Decl. Ex. A at 2 (confirming existence of unproduced claim file materials and asserting privilege over that material).) Allstate does not argue otherwise but rather asserts that the current record is sufficient to decide its summary judgment motion. (See Resp. at 4.)
Because Mr. Lindquist has made the requisite showing, see Emps. Teamsters, 353 F.3d at 1129, the only question is whether he has been diligent in his pursuit of discovery, Burlington N., 323 F.3d at 773-74. The court finds that he has shown sufficient diligence. (See 8/16/21 Order at 13 (ordering Allstate to produce additional material and inviting Mr. Lindquist to seek fees incurred in that dispute); see also Knudsen Decl., Exs. A & C (documenting efforts by Mr. Lindquist to obtain discovery).)
Thus, the court grants Mr. Lindquist's motion for a continuance and re-notes Allstate's motion for partial summary judgment to Friday, October 29, 2021. Mr. Lindquist is entitled to file a new response to Allstate's summary judgment motion in accordance with the local rules. See Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3). Likewise, Allstate may file a reply to Mr. Lindquist's new response. See id.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the court GRANTS Mr. Lindquist's motion to continue Allstate's motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. # 74). The court also DIRECTS the Clerk to re-note Allstate's motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. # 71) for October 29, 2021.