Goodman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 73

ORDER denying 39 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel an Answer to Plaintiff's First Interrogatory, as set forth in the Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 1/27/2014.(mjwcd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01376-WJM-MJW

KIMBERLY GOODMAN,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant(s).

ORDER REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL AN ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST
INTERROGATORY (DOCKET NO. 39)

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel an Answer to
Plaintiff’s First Interrogatory (docket no. 39). The court has reviewed the subject motion
(docket no. 39), the response (docket no. 59), and the reply (docket no. 71). In addition,
the court has taken judicial notice of the court’s file and has considered applicable
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law. The court now being fully informed
makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The court finds:
1.

That I have jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties
to this lawsuit;

2
2.

That venue is proper in the state and District of Colorado;

3.

That each party has been given a fair and adequate opportunity to
be heard;

4.

That plaintiff seeks an Order from this court compelling defendant
State Farm to answer plaintiff’s first interrogatory; and

5.

That plaintiff’s first interrogatory is overly-broad and unduly
burdensome because plaintiff’s first interrogatory is not limited as to
time, location, and as to defendant State Farm only. Moreover,
plaintiff has access to this information concerning bad faith cases
against State Farm via a search by Westlaw or LexisNexis.
Further, plaintiff can do a search on bad faith cases concerning
defendant State Farm through the CM/ECF system in this court and
through a similar search through the state of Colorado courts
electronic filing system. See McCrink v. Peoples Benefit Life Ins.
Co., 2004 WL 2743420, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 29, 2004).
ORDER

WHEREFORE, based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law this
court ORDERS:
1.

That Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel an Answer to Plaintiff’s First
Interrogatory (docket no. 39) is DENIED; and

2.

That each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this

3
motion.
Done this 27th day of January 2014.
BY THE COURT
s/Michael J. Watanabe
MICHAEL J. WATANABE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE