Goodman v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 74

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 47 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff's Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production, 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 ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF’S SECOND SET OF
INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION (DOCKET NO. 47)

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to
Plaintiff’s Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production (docket no. 47).
The court has reviewed the subject motion (docket no. 47), the response (docket no.
61), and the reply (docket no. 68). 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 second set of interrogatories and
requests for production. Specifically, interrogatories 7 and 9 and
requests for production 7,8, and 9;

5.

That Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defines
the scope of discovery as follows:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of
discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to
any party’s claim or defense–including the existence,
description, nature, custody, condition, and location of
any documents or other tangible things and the
identity and location of persons who know of any
discoverable matter. For good cause, the court may
order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject
matter involved in the action. Relevant information
need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence. All discovery is
subject to the limitations imposed by Rule 26(b)(2)(C).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). However, “a party’s right to obtain
discovery of ‘any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim
or defense of a party’ . . . may be constrained where the court
determines that the desired discovery is unreasonable or unduly
burdensome given the needs of the case, the importance of the
issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed

3
discovery in resolving the issues.” Simpson v. University of Colo.,
220 F.R.D. 354, 356 (D. Colo. 2004). “The Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure permit a court to restrict or preclude discovery when
justice requires in order to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or
expense. . . .” Id. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) and (c);
6.

That as to defendant State Farms’ objections to interrogatory no. 7,
those objections are overruled. Defendant State Farm has failed to
demonstrate that responding to interrogatory no. 7 is protected by
work product or by the attorney-client privilege. There is no
privilege log provided to the court, and the mere fact that plaintiff is
to depose defendant State Farms’ adjuster, Dennis Spinks, on
February 5, 2014, does not answer fully interrogatory no. 7. The
original response given by defendant State Farm to interrogatory
no. 7 is less than complete and is not fully responsive;

7.

That defendant State Farms’ objections to interrogatory no. 9 are
sustained. The scope of this interrogatory over a ten-year period of
time is overly-broad, unduly burdensome, and does not limit claims
to Colorado;

8.

That defendant State Farms’ objections to request for production
no. 7 are sustained. Defendant State Farm has already provided
plaintiff with all photographs in their possession and have no
surveillance video or photographs of plaintiff. See paragraph 29 in

4
the Response (docket no. 61);
9.

That defendant State Farms’ objections to request for production
no. 8 are sustained. Defendant State Farm does not have any
incentive programs that are tied to the approval or denial of claims.
See paragraphs 31, 32, 33 and 34 in the Response (docket no. 61);
and

10.

That defendant State Farms’ objections to request for production
no. 9 are sustained. This request for production seeks confidential
and proprietary business information belonging to defendant State
Farm and would invade the privacy interests of its employees.
Furthermore, it is overly-broad as worded.
ORDER

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

That Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Answers to Plaintiff’s Second Set
of Interrogatories and Requests for Production (docket no. 47) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is GRANTED as
to interrogatory no. 7. It is DENIED as to interrogatory no. 9 and
requests for production nos. 7, 8, and 9. Defendant State Farm
shall provide to plaintiff a full response to interrogatory no. 7 on or
before February 11, 2014; and

2.

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

5
subject motion (docket no. 47) since this court finds that it would be
unjust to award expenses under these circumstances.

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