Pollock et al v. Federal Insurance Company

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern
 District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
THOMAS POLLOCK, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
Case No. 21-cv-09975-JCS
DENYING MOTION TO STRIKE
LATE-PRODUCED DOCUMENTS
UNDER RULE 37
Re: Dkt. No. 261
Federal has filed a motion asking the Court to “strike from the record” 23 documents
Plaintiffs produced on October 10, 2025, after the close of fact discovery, on the basis that
Plaintiffs’ production was untimely. Dkt. no. 261 (“Motion”). Because there is no indication that
any of these documents has yet been relied on by Plaintiffs or become part of the official record in
this case, the Court finds that the Motion is premature. Moreover, the prejudice Federal alludes to
is, at this point, speculative, see, e.g., Motion at 7 (“Plaintiffs undoubtedly produced (and created)
these documents to sow confusion about a central issue the jury will decide at trial—i.e., whether
Plaintiffs can meet their burden of proving the Glass Fire caused their claimed losses”), and
appears to be overblown. In addition, it appears that Federal’s counsel did not meaningfully meet
and confer with Plaintiffs’ counsel to determine whether any prejudice associated with the late
production can be addressed by allowing for some minor supplemental discovery. Accordingly,
the Court DENIES the Motion without prejudice to bringing a motion to strike or preclude at an
appropriate time, if the dispute cannot be resolved by good faith efforts to resolve it without Court
intervention.
The Court notes that the instant Motion is in line with a pattern of conduct by counsel in
this action, who appear to deem no discovery dispute too inconsequential to seek the Court’s
Case 3:21-cv-09975-JCS Document 269 Filed 01/03/26 Page 1 of 2

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
assistance. See, e.g., dkt. no. 172 (cautioning the parties that many of their discovery disputes
brought before the Court in this case involved “issues that the parties should have been able to
resolve without Court assistance.”). Counsel’s conduct has imposed a significant burden on the
Court. As this case approaches trial, the Court expects counsel to meaningfully meet and confer to
resolve all disputes – especially minor disputes such as the one raised in the instant Motion -- and
to seek Court intervention only where the parties are unable to resolve their disputes through good
faith efforts.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 3, 2026
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 3:21-cv-09975-JCS Document 269 Filed 01/03/26 Page 2 of 2