Williams v. American International Group, Inc. et al

Filing 31

ORDERED that Plf's 21 Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and rendered MOOT in part, as further set out in order; Dfts shall provide all supplemental responses ordered herein within seven days of this Order. Signed by Honorable Judge Gray M. Borden on 5/12/2016. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
FREDRICK R. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL
GROUP, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:15-cv-554-JDW-GMB
[WO]

ORDER
Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 21). Defendant
Health Direct, Inc. has filed a response in opposition to that motion (Doc. 26), as have
Defendants AIG Claims, Inc., f/k/a Chantis Claims, Inc., and American Home Assurance
Co. (the “AIG Defendants”) (Doc. 27), and the court heard oral argument on the motion by
telephonic conference on May 11, 2016. On the basis of the filings and oral argument,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and rendered MOOT
in part, as set out below.
Defendants have objected to a number of Plaintiff’s discovery requests on
relevancy and other grounds.

Rule 26(b)(1) defines discoverable materials as those that

are
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.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (2015).

The court’s analysis of relevance and proportionality in

this matter has also been guided by the admonition that “[i]nformation within this scope
of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id.
Consistent with Rule 26(b)(1), and for the reasons below and those stated by the
court during the telephonic conference, the court holds as follows with respect to each
discovery request at issue:
Request No. 19.

The Motion to Compel is GRANTED to the extent Plaintiff
seeks information regarding lawsuits filed in the previous five
years wherein the claims include the tort of outrage and the
factual allegations relate to intentional delay of medical
authorizations. The court finds that these lawsuits have at
least some relevance to Defendants’ intent and to the
propriety and amount of punitive damages, and that the scope
of the request is proportional to the needs of the case.
Plaintiff’s request for lawsuits involving dissimilar outrage
allegations is DENIED.

Request No. 23

The Motion to Compel is MOOT in as much as the AIG
Defendants have represented that they are not in possession of
responsive documents that have not been produced.

Request No. 24

The Motion to Compel is MOOT in as much as the AIG
Defendants have represented that they are not in possession of
responsive documents that have not been produced.

Request No. 29

The Motion to Compel is MOOT in as much as the AIG
Defendants have represented that they are not in possession of
responsive documents that have not been produced.

Request No. 31

The Motion to Compel is MOOT in as much as the AIG
Defendants have represented that they are not in possession of
responsive documents that have not been produced.

Request No. 32

The Motion to Compel is GRANTED. The court finds that
the adjuster’s handling of workplace injuries for Plaintiff’s
2

co-workers has at least some relevance to Defendants’ intent
and to the propriety and amount of punitive damages, and that
the scope of the request is proportional to the needs of the
case.
Request No. 33

The Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in
part. The court finds that the former claims adjusters and
managers are likely to possess discoverable information in as
much as the AIG Defendants’ records indicate each former
employee took action on Plaintiff’s claims from 2011 to 2013.
The AIG Defendants are ORDERED to provide phone
numbers and last known addresses in their possession for
each individual named in their response to Request No. 33,
with the exception of the individual who has already been
deposed. The court finds that the production of any
additional personal information is not proportional to the
needs of the case or Plaintiff’s expressed purpose for
obtaining this information.

Request No. 35

The Motion to Compel is GRANTED. The court finds that
the requested activity notes have at least some relevance to
Defendants’ intent and to the propriety and amount of
punitive damages, and that the scope of the request is
proportional to the needs of the case. The AIG Defendants
may redact any privileged information prior to production.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 21) is
GRANTED in part, DENIED in part, and rendered MOOT in part, as set out above.
Defendants shall provide all supplemental responses ordered herein within seven days of
this Order.
DONE this 12th day of May, 2016.
/s/ Gray M. Borden
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3