Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, et al.

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE LINH WANG, CASE NO. C24-0447-JCC Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Dkt. No. 119).

Having fully considered the briefing and the relevant record, and finding oral argument unnecessary, the Court DENIES the motion as discussed herein.

The Court has described the relevant facts and procedural history here in prior orders. (See Dkt. Nos. 59, 107.) It will not repeat that information again. Presently at issue is Defendant Esurance Insurance Company’s compliance with orders compelling the production of claims- handling manuals, reference materials, and training materials. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 59, 95.)

Plaintiff contends Defendant has willfully failed to comply and should now face Rule 37(b) sanctions. (See generally Dkt. No. 119.) But before considering what sanctions should be imposed, the Court must first affirmatively find that Defendant has, indeed, willfully failed to comply. See, e.g., Wanderer v. Johnston, 910 F.2d 652, 656 (9th Cir. 1990); Wyle v. R.J.

1 Reynolds Industries, Inc., 709 F.2d 585, 589 (9th Cir. 1983). And the Court cannot make that finding, at least with any certainty. This is because Defendant’s explanation(s) regarding what it failed to produce, (see Dkt. Nos. 125–128, 132), absent countervailing evidence from Plaintiff, is compelling.

5 Nevertheless, some of the holes Plaintiff points to in Defendant’s production, (see Dkt.

6 No. 129 at 3–6), raises concerns. Thus, the Court reopens discovery for 45 days, beginning today, for the limited purpose of (a) Plaintiff’s review of 200 storage boxes referenced in Defendant’s response brief, (see Dkt. No. 125 at 10), along with (b) new or additional deposition testimony from one of the following: Chris Kirby, Martin Klein, or Warren Woolfolk. That testimony, not to exceed one day, shall be limited to topics regarding the deponent’s knowledge of Defendant’s claims manuals, training materials, and/or learning courses. If, after reviewing the contents of those boxes and/or the testimony described above, Plaintiff believes Defendant failed to comply with the Court’s prior orders (and that failure was not substantially justified), Plaintiff may renew her motion for sanctions.

15 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (Dkt. No. 119) is DENIED without prejudice.

18 DATED this 1st day of December 2025.

A John C. Coughenour 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE