Sycks et al v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
LILA SYCKS and the ESTATE OF
VERNON D. SYCKS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TRANSAMERICA LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; and
BANKERS UNITED LIFE
ASSUARANCE COMPANY,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO
COMPEL
Pending before the Court at Docket 61 is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (the
“Motion”). 	Defendant 	Transamerica 	Life 	Insurance 	Company 	(“Transamerica”)
responded in opposition at Docket 64. Plaintiffs replied at Docket 67. For the following
reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED IN PART.
I. 	BACKGROUND
This lawsuit arises from the lapse of Plaintiffs’ Last Survivor Flexible
Premium 	Interest 	Indexed 	Universal 	Life 	Insurance 	Policy 	Number 	B119812 	(the
“Policy”).1 	Plaintiffs’ surviving claims are for a declaration that Transamerica must
1 Docket 26.
Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 68 Filed 04/20/23 Page 1 of 14

Sycks et al v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company et al 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 	Page 2
continue the Policy, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.2
The present motion stems from a discovery dispute that has been percolating
for months. Plaintiffs first served their Requests for Production (“RFPs”) on Transamerica
on April 28, 2022.3 	Transamerica then moved to stay discovery until after the pending
motion to dismiss was resolved.4 The Court denied Transamerica’s motion, finding that a
discovery stay was not warranted.5 	The Court stated that “[t]o the extent Defendant
considers Plaintiffs’ discovery requests unduly burdensome or overbroad, they may be
negotiated and narrowed during the meet and confer process.”6 	The Court required the
parties to meet and confer to complete a Scheduling and Planning Conference report and
ordered that no written discovery will be due until thirty days after a Scheduling and
Planning Order was issued.7 	In their Scheduling and Planning Conference Report, the
Parties agreed that the deadline for “responses to pending discovery [shall] be 30 days after
the Court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss, assuming the Court’s ruling resolves the issues
with the pleadings.”8 In the Scheduling and Planning Order, the Court set the deadline for
discovery responses in accordance with this agreement.9
2 Docket 47.
3 Docket 62 at 2; Docket 62-1.
4 Docket 30.
5 Docket 36.
6 Id. at 9.
7 Id. at 9–10.
8 Docket 37 at 2.
9 Docket 38 at 2.
Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 68 Filed 04/20/23 Page 2 of 14

Sycks et al v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company et al 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 	Page 3
The 	Court 	issued 	an 	Order 	on 	Defendant’s 	Motion 	to 	Dismiss 	on
December 2, 2022, granting Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint.10 	Plaintiffs then
indicated that they would not amend their Complaint.11 	At a status conference on
December 21, 2022, the Court clarified that discovery responses were due on January 3,
2023.12 The parties met and conferred on December 16, 2022, at which time Transamerica
noted its objection that certain discovery requests were overbroad and stated that specific
objections would be set forth in Transamerica’s Responses and Objections due on
January 3, 2023.13 Plaintiffs then requested a letter outlining Transamerica’s objections on
or by December 23, 2022, reiterating this request again on December 21, 2022.14
Transamerica served its responses to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests on January 3, 2023.15
On January 4, 2023, Plaintiffs wrote to Transamerica, indicating that their responses to
Plaintiffs’ RFPs were deficient because they were “full of boilerplate and meaningless
objections” and Transamerica did not produce any documents with its responses.16
Plaintiffs indicated that they would file a motion to compel if Transamerica did not correct
these deficiencies by January 10, 2023.17 	Transamerica’s counsel missed this email and
did not respond.18
10 Docket 47 at 24.
11 Docket 49.
12 Docket 55 (text entry).
13 Docket 62-5 at 1; Docket 64 at 5.
14 Docket 62-5 at 1; Docket 62-6 at 1.
15 Docket 62-7 at 2.
16 Id. at 1.
17 Id.
18 Docket 64-3 at 4.
Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 68 Filed 04/20/23 Page 3 of 14

Sycks et al v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company et al 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 	Page 4
Plaintiffs filed the present motion on January 19, 2023, seeking an order
compelling Defendant to substantively respond to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.19 	Later
in the day on January 19, 2023, Transamerica made its first production of documents
responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.20 	In their opposition to the present motion,
Transamerica represents that it has a forthcoming production of additional responsive
documents and, after that production, “Transamerica will have voluntarily produced all
documents it has been able to identify through a diligent search of its records that pertain
to the Policy at issue in this litigation.”21 In reply, Plaintiffs claim that they have not yet
received the promised additional production of responsive documents.22
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
District courts generally have “broad discretion to manage discovery and
control the course of litigation.”23 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26,
[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged
matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional 	to 	the 	needs 	of 	the 	case, 	considering 	the
importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
controversy, 	the 	parties’ 	relative 	access 	to 	relevant
information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the
discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or
expense 	of 	the 	proposed 	discovery 	outweighs 	its 	likely
benefit.24
19 Docket 61.
20 Docket 64 at 7; Docket 67 at 5.
21 Docket 64 at 7.
22 Docket 67 at 5.
23 Hunt v. Cnty. of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Avila v. Willits
Envtl. Remediation Trust, 633 F.3d 828, 833 (9th Cir. 2011)).
24 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 68 Filed 04/20/23 Page 4 of 14

Sycks et al v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company et al 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 	Page 5
Under Rule 37, a party may move for an order compelling a response when
a party fails to respond to a discovery request.25 A motion under Rule 37 must include a
certification that the movant “has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the
. . . party failing to make disclosure . . . in an effort to obtain it without court action.”26 An
“evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to
disclose, answer, or respond.”27 	The party moving to compel has “the initial burden of
demonstrating relevance.”28 Relevancy is defined broadly at the discovery stage; however,
“it does have ‘ultimate and necessary boundaries.”29 	Accordingly, courts have “broad
discretion to determine relevance for discovery purposes.”30 Once a showing of relevance
is made, the party resisting discovery “has the burden to show that discovery should not be
allowed, and has the burden of clarifying, explaining, and supporting its objections.”31
25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B).
26 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1).
27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).
28 Garibay v. Caravan Realty, LLC, No. 2:19-cv-10910-JDE, 2021 WL 4620954, at *2
(C.D. Cal. June 21, 2021) (quoting United States v. McGraw-Hill Cos, Inc., No. CV 13-779-DOC
(JCGx), 2014 WL 1647385, at *8 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2014)).
29 Doherty v. Comenity Cap. Bank & Comenity Bank, No. 16cv1321-H-BGS, 2017 WL
1885677, at *2 (S.D. Cal. May 9, 2017) (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507 (1947)).
30 Cancino Castellar v. McAleenan, No. 3:17-cv-491-BAS-AHG, 2020 WL 1332485, at
*5 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2020) (“[C]ourts often link the elements of a cause of action with the
discovery sought”).
31 Garibay, 2021 WL 4620954, at *2 (quoting DIRECTV, Inc. v. Trone, 209 F.R.D. 455,
458 (C.D. Cal. 2002)).
Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 68 Filed 04/20/23 Page 5 of 14

Sycks et al v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company et al 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 	Page 6
III. 	DISCUSSION
A. 	Meet and Confer Requirement
Transamerica argues that Plaintiffs’ Motion should be denied because
Plaintiffs’ meet and confer efforts consisted of one email that went unanswered.32
Plaintiffs respond that there were ongoing meet and confer efforts regarding these
discovery requests in the month leading up to January 3, 2023.33 The Court disagrees with
Plaintiffs that the pre-discovery deadline communications should count for the meet and
confer requirement in connection with this Motion. 	Transamerica cannot be faulted for
refusing to reveal their specific responses and objections to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests
before they were due. The process of whittling down a discovery dispute and negotiating
the scope of the discovery requests is most fruitful after a party has presented their
objections. 	Further, the Court has urged the Parties to engage in robust meet and confer
processes several times.34 The decision to seek judicial intervention should not hinge on
one unanswered email. Given the history of this litigation, in any future discovery motions
the Court will require the Parties submit proof of a conference involving an exchange
regarding the substance of any objected-to discovery requests, as well as a description of
the attempts to narrow the dispute before Court intervention. 	Discovery motions that do
not include this level of detail about the meet and confer process will be summarily denied.
32 Docket 64 at 8.
33 Docket 67 at 1–2.
34 See Docket 36 at 7.
Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 68 Filed 04/20/23 Page 6 of 14

Sycks et al v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company et al 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 	Page 7
B. 	RFPs 1–5, 15–16, 19, 29–31, and Initial Disclosures
For each of the above-listed discovery requests, Transamerica represents that
it already has produced all the responsive documents in its possession or that it will produce
additional documents and information responsive to these requests in the near future.35
Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is denied as moot as to these requests. To the
extent that Transamerica represented that additional documents responsive to these
requests were forthcoming and have not already been produced to Plaintiffs, Transamerica
must produce those additional documents within fourteen (14) days of this Order.
C. 	RFPs 6–9
RFPs 6 and 7 request all insurance policies that Transamerica issued at any
time that contain the “scrivener’s error” that Transamerica argues is present in Plaintiffs’
Policy. RFPs 8 and 9 request all insurance policies that Transamerica issued to consumers
in Alaska “at any time” and “since January 1, 1990.”36 	Plaintiffs argue that “[t]hese
requests are relevant to this action because the information is likely to lead to the discovery
of admissible evidence that will prove or disprove Transamerica’s defense that Lila’s
policy contains a scrivener’s error.”37 	Plaintiffs assert that such evidence includes “the
identity of the scrivener, the qualifications and training of the scrivener, other policies with
[sic] might show instances of the same error or the absence of error, and the methods by
which Transamerica discovered the error.”38
35 See Docket 64 at 11–13.
36 Docket 62-1 at 5–6.
37 Docket 61 at 8.
38 Id. at 8–9.
Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 68 Filed 04/20/23 Page 7 of 14

Sycks et al v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company et al 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 	Page 8
Plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of establishing that these requests
are relevant and proportional to the needs of this case. 	Under Alaska law, insurance
contracts are interpreted in accordance with the reasonable expectations of the insured.39
Therefore, the relevant inquiry regarding the purported scrivener’s error is whether a
reasonable insured would view the phrase at issue as an error and thus not rely on it when
forming expectations about the meaning of the insurance contract. 	An inquiry about the
error itself, including into how the error came to be, who made the error, and whether the
error was present in other policies, is a sideshow. 	How other insurance consumers have
interpreted the same error may have some relevance in this action, but these requests do
not capture that information. 	Whatever minimal relevance these requests have is
outweighed by the burden and expense associated with producing the requested documents.
Transamerica submitted a declaration indicating that its data files cannot be searched or
sorted by discrete policy provisions, particular insurance agents, or location of the
insured.40 	Transamerica would have to manually search its twenty-two administrative
systems to gather this information, a process that could take hundreds of hours.41 	These
assertions are not “[u]nsupported, conclusory statements regarding expense and burden”;
they are specific estimates supported by declaration.42 	In sum, because the relevance of
these requests is minimal and the expense associated with compliance is great, the Court
39 Bering Strait Sch. Dist. v. RLI Ins. Co., 873 P.2d 1292, 1294 (Alaska 1994).
40 Docket 64-2 at 3–5.
41 Id.
42 Yphantides v. Cnty of San Diego, No. 21cv1575-GPC(BLM), 2022 WL 3362271, at *7
(S.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2022).
Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 68 Filed 04/20/23 Page 8 of 14

Sycks et al v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company et al 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 	Page 9
concludes that these requests are disproportionate to the needs of this case, specifically
because the burden of the proposed discovery outweighs its benefit. Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Compel is DENIED as to these requests.
D. 	RFPs 10–11
RFPs 10 and 11 request information regarding the training of Charles
Aubertin, the agent who sold the Policy to Plaintiffs, and “all documents, created between
January 1, 1990 and the present day, which identify, refer to, or reflect the qualifications
and training of any agents authorized to market Transamerica’s insurance policies to
consumers in the State of Alaska.”43 	It is unclear to the Court how these requests are
relevant, given that this case does not involve allegations of malpractice or negligence in
connection with Transamerica’s marketing of insurance policies. If the relevance of these
requests is tied to tracking down the source of the scrivener’s error, that argument for
relevancy is tenuous, as explained above. Further, these requests, particularly RFP 11, are
facially overbroad. 	The burden of this discovery outweighs its uncertain benefit.
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel is DENIED as to these requests.
E. 	RFP 12
Transamerica represents that it has searched and has been unable to locate
any documents responsive to this request.44 	“Absent evidence that [Transamerica] is
withholding documents in its possession, the [C]ourt cannot issue an order compelling
43 Docket 62-1 at 6.
44 Docket 64 at 11.
Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 68 Filed 04/20/23 Page 9 of 14

Sycks et al v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company et al 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 	Page 10
[Defendant] to produce documents it states it does not have.”45 	Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Compel is DENIED as to this request.
F. 	RFPs 13–14 and 17–18
The above-listed requests all seek information related to the training and
policies utilized by Transamerica and its employees to investigate a life insurance policy
lapse or termination or respond to a claim for life insurance proceeds following a lapse or
termination of a life insurance policy.46 Unlike the requests listed in Sections C and D of
this Order, these requests are relevant. Specifically, they are relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim
for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, including Plaintiffs’ allegations
that Defendant’s refusal to withdraw the lapse notice and continue providing the benefits
of the Policy “was made without full and complete investigation by Defendants into the
facts and the law, such that Defendants had no reasonable basis for this position.”47
Although these requests are relevant, they are overbroad and disproportionate to the needs
of the case—they request all training, procedures, or policies relating to life insurance
policy lapses covering any employee over a thirty-year time period.
To bring these requests back into the realm of proportionality, in response to
these requests, Transamerica shall produce all the documents that Transamerica employees
reviewed when assessing whether Plaintiffs’ Policy had lapsed, whether to grant Plaintiffs’
request to withdraw the lapse notice, and whether to terminate the Policy. 	Transamerica
45 Ogden v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC, 292 F.R.D. 620, 628–29 (N.D. Cal. 2013).
46 Docket 62-1 at 7–9.
47 Docket 26 at 3, 6–7.
Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 68 Filed 04/20/23 Page 10 of 14

Sycks et al v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company et al 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 	Page 11
also shall produce documents relating to training that the employees involved in the
lapse/termination decision actually received, as well any internal policies and procedures
covering how to assess when life insurance policies lapse that were in effect in 2021.48
G. 	RFPs 20–22 and 24
The above-listed requests seek the CVs, resumes, and personnel files of
Transamerica employees that were involved in the Plaintiffs’ Policy termination.49 RFP 24
also requests documents confirming that “Milisa D.” was a licensed insurance adjuster.50
Transamerica argues that these files are confidential and irrelevant.51 	Transamerica also
asserts that “Milisa D.” is not an employee of Transamerica.52 	These documents are
relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim relating to Transamerica’s failure to investigate and bad faith
handling 	of 	Plaintiffs’ 	Policy 	termination.53 	Further, 	as 	it 	relates 	to 	Milisa 	D.,
Transamerica received documents responsive to RFPs 15 and 16 from Milisa D.’s
employer and it is unclear why it cannot do the same for RFP 24. 	Plaintiffs’ Motion to
Compel, therefore, is GRANTED as to these requests. 	To address any confidentiality
concerns, Plaintiffs are entitled only to the work-related information contained in the
requested files and not financial, family, or medical information. The Parties also are free
48 Basargin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 3:16-cv-0041-HRH, 2017 WL 8677338,
at *4 (D. Alaska Jan. 11, 2017).
49 Docket 62-1 at 9–10.
50 Id. at 10.
51 Docket 64 at 15.
52 Id.
53 Tilden-Coil Constructors, Inc. v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., No. C09-1574JLR, 2010 WL
11565904, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 3, 2010) (finding insurance adjuster employee file relevant to
bad faith claims).
Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 68 Filed 04/20/23 Page 11 of 14

Sycks et al v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company et al 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 	Page 12
to enter into a stipulated protective order to govern the handling of any sensitive documents
in this litigation.
H. 	RFPs 23, 25–26
The above-listed RFPs request Transamerica’s organizational charts in effect
in 2021, as well as its competency requirements to serve as a claim adjuster with
responsibilities involving life insurance claims made by Alaska insureds.54 Transamerica
argues 	that 	these 	requests 	“inappropriately 	seek 	corporate 	information 	concerning
Transamerica,” which is irrelevant to the issues in this lawsuit.55 	These requests are
relevant to Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim, but they are overbroad. 	To satisfy these requests,
Transamerica shall produce any organizational charts in effect in August 2021 that reflect
the chain of command and reporting responsibilities of those individuals actually involved
in the handling of Plaintiffs’ Policy lapse and termination. 	Further, regarding RFP 26,
Transamerica shall produce the competency requirements for a claim adjuster with
responsibilities involving life insurance claims made by Alaska insureds that were in effect
in 2021. As stated above, the Parties may enter into a stipulated protective order to protect
sensitive business documents from disclosure outside of this litigation.
I. 	RFP No. 27–28
RFPs 27 and 28 request copies of “all correspondence issued by Milisa D. or
any 	other 	Intermediate 	Compliance 	Analyst 	from 	January 	1, 	2010 	to 	the 	present,
54 Docket 62-1 at 10–11.
55 Docket 64 at 15.
Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 68 Filed 04/20/23 Page 12 of 14

Sycks et al v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company et al 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 	Page 13
responding to any inquiry or complaint about ‘Cost of Insurance’ rates” or “a termination
or lapse of a policy of the ‘Grace Period Provision.’”56 	Transamerica argues these
documents are irrelevant and “it would be tremendously burdensome for Transamerica to
locate and produce the over 13 years if correspondences requested.”57 	Transamerica
asserts that it does not have a central repository for such correspondences, so it would need
to manually review “each and every one of its complaint files on the off-chance it contains
such correspondence.”58 These requests are relevant to Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim, but their
scope and breadth are disproportionate, especially given the efforts Transamerica must
undertake to identify these correspondences. In response to these requests and to alleviate
the burden associated with searching for correspondence, Transamerica must produce all
complaints or inquiries about a termination or lapse of a life insurance policy, or the “Cost
of Insurance” rates, or the “Grace Period Provision” in which Milisa D. was involved from
2017 through 2021.
J. 	Attorney’s Fees
Plaintiffs’ request an award of their reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in
bringing the present Motion.59 When a discovery motion is granted in part and denied in
part, the court “may, after giving an opportunity to be heard, apportion the reasonable
expenses for the motion.”60 Although Plaintiffs’ Motion is granted in part, the Court, in its
56 Docket 62-1 at 11.
57 Docket 64 at 15.
58 Id. at 15–16; Docket 64-2 at 6.
59 Docket 61 at 1.
60 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(C).
Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 68 Filed 04/20/23 Page 13 of 14

Sycks et al v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company et al 	Case No. 3:22-cv-00010-JMK
Order Granting in Part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel 	Page 14
discretion, declines to award any amount of attorney’s fees, given the Court’s belief that
this Motion could have been entirely avoided with the aid of a more robust meet-and-confer
process.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
For 	the 	reasons 	articulated 	above, 	Plaintiffs’ 	Motion 	to 	Compel 	is
GRANTED IN PART. Any documents that the Court ordered to be produced herein shall
be produced to Plaintiffs within fourteen (14) days of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of April, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Joshua M. Kindred
JOSHUA M. KINDRED
United States District Judge
Case 3:22-cv-00010-SLG Document 68 Filed 04/20/23 Page 14 of 14