Wellinger Family Trust 1998, The et al v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company
ORDER: 48 Unopposed Motion for In Camera Review of Disputed Items From Defendant's Privilege Log is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 52 Amended Motion to Compel Complete Responses to Written Discovery is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Supplemental discovery responses due by 3/1/13. by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 2/21/13. (bnbcd, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02568-CMA-BNB
THE WELLINGER FAMILY TRUST 1998;
JULIE WELLINGER, trustee, and
JULIE WELLINGER, individually,
HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance
This matter arises on the following:
Corrected Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Complete Responses to Written
Discovery [Doc. # 52, filed 1/28/2013] (the “Motion to Compel”); and
Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for In Camera Review of Disputed Items From
Defendant’s Privilege Log [Doc. # 48, filed 1/25/2013] (the “Motion for In Camera Review”).
I held a hearing on the motions yesterday and made rulings on the record, which are
IT IS ORDERED:
The Motion to Compel [Doc. # 52] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART as follows:
•GRANTED with respect to Interrogatories 4, 5, 6, and 13 to require the defendant to
provide a full and complete answer to the following: What the defendant determined regarding
Jeffrey Wellinger’s ability to maintain life insurance post-employment at the same level as
maintained during his employment including: (I) the identity of the person who made the
determination; (ii) the life insurance coverage available to Jeffrey Wellinger post-employment;
(iii) the basis for the determination of the life insurance coverage available to Jeffrey Wellinger
post-employment; and (iv) the documents supporting the defendant’s determination of the life
insurance coverage available to Jeffrey Wellinger post-employment;
•GRANTED with respect to Interrogatories 11, 13, and 19;
•GRANTED with respect to Production Request 3 to require the defendant to produce
documents referred to or relied on in answering Interrogatories 4, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16, and 19; and
•DENIED in all other respects.
The Motion for In Camera Review [Doc. # 48] is DENIED without prejudice
pending the defendant’s supplemental response to Interrogatory 16 and the preparation of a
revised privilege log identifying the date the documents were created or annotations to the
documents were made; the author and all recipients of the documents claimed to be privileged;
and specification with particularity of the privilege or immunity claimed as to each document.
The defendant shall provide supplemental discovery responses consistent with
this Order and in full compliance with the formalities of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on
or before March 1, 2013.
Dated February 21, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States 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?