Villas Townhouse Association, The v. American Family Insurance Group

Filing 76

ORDER : granting in part and denying in part 57 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production and to Schedule Depositions, as set forth in the Order, by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe on 4/22/2014.(emill)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01920-REB-MJW
THE VILLAS TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION
a/k/a VILLAS WEST TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION (VTA), and
JOHN DOE AND JANE DOE as intended beneficiaries,
Plaintiff(s),
v.
AMERICAN FAMILY GROUP
d/b/a AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant(s).

ORDER REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION AND TO SCHEDULE
DEPOSITIONS (DOCKET NO. 57)

Entered by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production and to
Schedule Depositions (docket no. 57). The court has reviewed the subject motion
(docket no. 57) and the response (docket no. 74). 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 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

3
burdensome given the needs of the case, the importance of the
issues at stake in the litigation, and the importance of the proposed
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);
5.

That as to the portion of the subject motion that seeks an Order
from the court to allow Plaintiff to take the deposition of Defendant’s
claims adjuster Harold Miller and Defendant’s designated corporate
representative pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6), such portion of
the subject motion (docket no. 57) is MOOT and therefore DENIED
since this court is allowing Plaintiff to take the deposition of
Defendant’s claims adjuster Harold Miller and Defendant’s
designated corporate representative pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(b)(6). See record in court (docket no. 71);

6.

That as to Plaintiff’s request for production (“RFP”) No. 2, the
Defendant objects to RFP No. 2 as being overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and/or protected from disclosure because of
confidentiality, trade secrets, attorney-client privilege, and/or work
product privilege. Defendant also states in RFP No. 2 that
American Family’s adjusters did not refer to any specific materials

4
when evaluating Plaintiff’s claims other than the policy itself. I find
the Defendant’s laundry list of objections listed above should be
overruled. Defendant shall fully respond to RFP No. 2;
7.

That as to Plaintiff’s RFP No. 3, the Defendant objects to RFP No.
3 as being irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and/or
protected from disclosure because of confidentiality, trade secrets,
and privacy interests. I find that the information is relevant on the
issue of bad faith but that the request is overly broad as written and
would be unduly burdensome since it is not limited geographically
and seeks information over five years. I find that Plaintiff should
receive information requested in RFP No. 3 for a three-year period
of time instead of a five-year period of time from January 1, 2010,
through December 31, 2012, inclusive, noting that the claimed loss
to the roof took place on December 5, 2011. See paragraph 10 in
the Complaint (docket no. 1-6). Furthermore, I find that the
geographic area that should cover RFP No. 3 should be limited to
the states of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas, and
Oklahoma;

8.

That as to Plaintiff’s RFPs Nos. 4 and 5, the Defendant objects to
RFPs Nos. 4 and 5 as being irrelevant, overly broad, unduly
burdensome, and/or protected from disclosure because of
confidentiality, trade secrets, and privacy interests. I find that the
Defendant’s objections listed above as to RFPs Nos. 4 and 5 are

5
sustained;
9.

That as to Plaintiff’s RFP No. 7, the Defendant objects to RFP No.
7 as being irrelevant, vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome,
and/or protected from disclosure because of confidentiality,
proprietary information, and trade secrets. I find that the
information is relevant to issues before this court. I find that Plaintiff
should receive information requested in RFP No. 7 except for the
business plans from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012,
inclusive, noting that the claimed loss to the roof took place on
December 5, 2011. See paragraph 10 in the Complaint (docket no.
1-6). See also Leidholt v. District Court in and for City and County
of Denver, 619 P.2d 768, 771 (Colo. 1980). Furthermore, I find that
the geographic area that should cover RFP No. 7 should be limited
to the states of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas,
and Oklahoma; and

10.

That as to Plaintiff’s RFP No. 8, the Defendant objects to RFP No.
8 as being irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and/or
protected from disclosure because of confidentiality, proprietary
information, privacy interests, and trade secrets. I find that
Defendant’s objections as stated above are sustained.
ORDER

WHEREFORE, based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law this

6
court ORDERS:
1.

That Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production and to Schedule
Depositions (docket no. 57) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART:
a.

The subject motion (docket no. 57) is GRANTED:
(1)

As to Plaintiff RFP No. 2;

(2)

As to Plaintiff RFP No. 3. However, Defendant
shall provide Plaintiff with the information
requested in RFP No. 3 only for the time frame
of January 1, 2010, through December 31,
2012, inclusive, and the geographic area that
should cover RFP. No. 3 should be limited to
the states of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New
Mexico, Kansas, and Oklahoma; and

(3)

As to Plaintiff RFP No. 7. However, Defendant
shall provide Plaintiff with the information
requested in RFP No. 7 except for the
business plans from January 1, 2010, through
December 31, 2012, inclusive, and the
geographic area that should cover RFP. No. 7
should be limited to the states of Colorado,
Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas, and

7
Oklahoma;
b.

Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with the items in
subsection (a) above on or before May 6, 2014; and

c.

The subject motion (docket no. 57) is DENIED as
MOOT as to the portion of the subject motion (docket
no. 57) that seeks an Order from the Court allowing
Plaintiff to take the deposition of Defendant’s claims
adjuster Harold Miller and Defendant’s designated
corporate representative pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
30(b)(6). This Court is already allowing these
depositions to take place. See record in court (docket
no. 71. In addition, the subject motion (docket no.
57) is also DENIED as to Plaintiff’s RFPs Nos. 4, 5,
and 8; and

2.

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

Done this 22nd day of April 2014.
BY THE COURT

s/Michael J. Watanabe
MICHAEL J. WATANABE
U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE