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)

Download PDF
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

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?