Mehta v. Ace American Insurance Co

Filing 58

ORDER granting in part and denying in part plaintiff's 48 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Donna F. Martinez on 12/21/12. (Nichols, J.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
DINESH MEHTA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 3:10CV1617(RNC)

RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL
Plaintiff Dinesh Mehta brings this case individually and as
administrator of his late wife's estate against defendant Ace
American Insurance Company ("Ace") alleging that that he is
entitled to payment under an underinsured motorist policy for
fatal injuries suffered by his wife while she was crossing Main
Street in East Hartford.

(Doc. #1.)

In September 2012,

plaintiff filed the pending Motion to Compel, doc. #48, arguing
that Ace has not complied with discovery requests.1
A motion to compel is entrusted to the sound discretion of
the district court.
Cir. 2003).

In re Fitch, Inc., 330 F.3d 104, 108 (2d

After hearing oral argument on December 18, 2012,

the court rules on the discovery requests as follows:

1

District Judge Robert N. Chatigny referred the motion to
the undersigned. (Doc. #52.)

1.

Interrogatories 7, 13 and 14 were withdrawn by

plaintiff's counsel in open court.
2.

Interrogatories 5, 6 and 10 and Production Requests 1,

2 and 5 are granted in part with the following limitations to
scope.

Ace shall disclose responsive information from 2005 to

the present pertaining to the standard insurance policy at issue
in this case and/or the three defenses to coverage articulated
by Ace.2
3.

Interrogatory 8 and Production Request 3 are granted.

If after diligent efforts Ace concludes that no responsive
communications exist, it shall provide the defendant with a
sworn affidavit detailing its efforts.
4.

Interrogatories 9, 11 and 12 and Production Requests 4,

6 and 7 are granted.
Finally, any assertion of privilege as to a responsive
document must be set forth in a privilege log pursuant to D.
Conn. L. Civ. R. 26(e).

SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut this 21st day of
December, 2012.
____________/s/______________
Donna F. Martinez
United States Magistrate Judge
2

At oral argument, Ace asserted the following three defenses
to coverage: (1) the policy was an excess policy, which is
construed more narrowly than a primary policy; (2) the policy
did not cover a non-occupant of the plaintiff's vehicle; and (3)
plaintiff's decedent was not named in the policy.
2