Driver et al v. D. Mosley Trucking, Inc. et al
ORDER denying 29 Motion to Quash. Signed by Honorable Barry A. Bryant on February 20, 2014. (mll)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
LOIS DRIVER, et al
Case No. 4:13-cv-04074
D. MOSLEY TRUCKING, INC. et al.
BEFORE the Court is Defendant D. Mosley Trucking Inc. and Ramon R. Colon's Motion
to Quash and Motion for Protective Order. ECF. No. 29. Plaintiff responded on February 6, 2014.
ECF No. 33. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and (3) (2005), United States
District Judge Susan O. Hickey referred the Motion to Quash and Motion for Protective Order to the
undersigned for decision.
With this Motion, Defendant D. Mosley Trucking Inc. and Ramon R. Colon seek to quash
the deposition of non-party witness Wanda Denise McCauley which had been noticed for February
6, 2014.1 On February 4, 2014 this Court stayed the deposition until such time that Plaintiffs had
an opportunity to respond. ECF No. 32.
Plaintiffs seek to take the deposition of non-party witness Wanda Denise McCauley,
("McCauley"). According to Plaintiffs, McCauley is employed by Innovative Risk Management who
is the third party administrator on behalf of Arch Insurance Company; the company providing
insurance coverage to Defendant D. Mosley Trucking.
Plaintiff has since served an Amended Notice of Deposition of Wanda Denise McCauley for March 12,
2014. ECF No. 33-5. This Order will also apply to this Amended Notice.
According to Samuel Palermo, counsel for Plaintiffs Lois and Robert Driver, McCauley
informed him that there was more than one excess or umbrella coverages and she had notified the
excess carrier of the claim. On August 28, 2012, counsel for Plaintiff Lois Driver sent an email to
McCauley documenting the conversation. ECF No. 33-3. Plaintiffs also state, counsel for Plaintiffs
Keith Dedman and Sean Kearny, Mr. Tom Tatum, spoke with McCauley and she informed Mr.
Tatum that there was excess insurance coverage in this matter. Counsel for Defendants have
indicated the ARCH Insurance Policy in the amount of $1,000,000.00 is the only insurance that
covers Defendants for the allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint.
Defendants argue the notice is in violation of FRCP 26(b(2)(C), specifically, that the notice
is unreasonably burdensome, harassing and duplicative. Defendants further argue the deposition
should not take place because the burden and expense of the deposition outweighs its likely benefit.
ECF No. 29. Defendants do not assert a claim of privilege, "work-product" production, or that the
information sought is protected as trial preparation material.
In support of their argument, Defendants state that because they produced an affidavit by
Dale Mosley, President of D. Mosley Trucking, stating no excess or umbrella coverage exists, the
deposition of McCauley would be duplicative. Id. In the alternative, Defendants argue that if the
deposition of McCauley is allowed, it should be limited to existence of underlying insurance
coverage and be conducted telephonically. Id.
It appears that there is a valid dispute with regards to the existence of insurance coverage.
Plaintiffs have established this and support is found in the email forwarded to McCauley. ECF No.
33-3. Plaintiffs are certainly entitled to discover any insurance agreement that may provide coverage
for a possible judgement. Furthermore, to simply produce an affidavit, as Defendants have done
here, stating there is no need for the deposition does not render the taking of a deposition in these
circumstances burdensome, harassing or duplicative. Indeed, as Plaintiffs state in their Response
to this Motion to Quash, "it is nonsense to suggest that the deposition of Ms, McCauley would be
duplicative of Mr. Mosley affidavit."
Based on these findings, this Court finds Defendant D. Mosley Trucking Inc. and Ramon R.
Colon's Motion to Quash and Motion for Protective Order (ECF. No. 29) is DENIED. Plaintiffs
may proceed with scheduling the Deposition of Wanda Denise McCauley.
IT IS SO ORDERED
DATED this 20th day of February, 2014.
/s/ Barry A. Bryant
HON. BARRY A. BRYANT
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?