Price v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company

Filing 46

ORDER granting 32 Motion for Protective Order; granting in part and denying in part 36 Motion to Compel;and granting 41 Motion to Compel as set forth. Signed by Honorable Erin L. Setser on June 17, 2011. (lw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
FORT SMITH DIVISION
DANIEL PRICE, Individually,
and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated
V.

PLAINTIFF
NO. 10-2152

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE
ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY, USAA GENERAL
INDEMNITY COMPANY, and USAA

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
On June 17, 2011, the Court conducted a telephonic hearing on Defendants’ Motion for
Protective Order (Doc. 32), Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 36) and Defendant’s Motion
To Compel (Doc. 41). By Order dated June 9, 2011, the Court deferred ruling on the
Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel until a ruling was
issued on Plaintiff’s anticipated motion for extension of the deadline for filing a class
certification motion. (Doc. 39). By text order entered on June 13, 2011, United States District
Judge P.K. Holmes extended the deadline for filing a Motion to Certify the Class until June 23,
2011. By text order entered on June 14, 2011, Judge Holmes terminated the deadlines set forth
in the Final Scheduling Order, and directed that an amended scheduling order would be issued
upon resolution of the issue of class certification.
The Court has reviewed the recent case cited by Plaintiff’s counsel during the telephone
conference - Riley v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 2011 Ark. 256 (June
16, 2011)- and finds that the facts in that case are distinguishable from those in the present case,
-1-

AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)

based upon what Plaintiff has pled in his Third Amended Petition. (Doc. 21). In the present
case, the Plaintiff has sought monetary damages in addition to declaratory relief. Therefore, in
accordance with the telephone conference on the above referenced motions, the Court hereby
rules as follows:
1. Defendants’ Motion to Compel (Doc. 41)
The Court finds that the information requested by Defendants is relevant and
discoverable, and the motion is hereby GRANTED. Plaintiff is directed to provide the
Defendants with the information requested in the motion by June 27, 2011. In addition, Plaintiff
is directed to execute the necessary HIPPA authorization for the release of medical records
pertaining to his injuries, since Plaintiff has placed the amount of his medical damages in issue
by alleging, in Paragraph 36 of his Third Amended Petition, that he has not been “fully
compensated” or “made whole” by his “settlement with Farmers.” (Doc. 21 at p. 8).
2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. 36)
Plaintiff’s motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
The motion is granted as to Plaintiff’s Request for Production # 2 and Request for
Production #10, to the extent Plaintiff seeks the incentive program documents that were in place
when Plaintiff’s claim was managed and the forms referenced in Plaintiff’s claim file. This
information should be provided to Plaintiff by June 21, 2011.
The motion is DENIED with respect to the remaining discovery requests in Plaintiff’s
motion, without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to seek the information in the event the class is
certified and Plaintiff can demonstrate the information sought is discoverable.

-2-

AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)

3. Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order (Doc. # 32)
The motion is GRANTED, except as to the documents outlined above ordered to be
produced by the Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED this17th day of June, 2011.
/s/ Erin L. Setser
HON. ERIN L. SETSER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-3-

AO72A
(Rev. 8/82)