Government Employees Insurance Co. et al v. Clear Vision Windshield Repair, L.L.C. et al

Filing 83

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 81 Motion to Compel better responses to requests for production. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 7/7/2017. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES
INSURANCE CO., GEICO INDEMNITY
CO., GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY and GEICO CASUALTY CO.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Case No: 6:16-cv-2077-Orl-28TBS

CLEAR VISION WINDSHIELD REPAIR,
L.L.C., MY CLEAR VIEW WINDSHIELD
REPAIR, INC., DOUGLAS STROH,
CENTRAL FLORIDA WINDSHIELD
REPAIR, L.L.C., LIZZETTE LABELL,
TRAVIS LABELL, J.C. WINDSHIELD
REPAIR, L.L.C., JEAN CAROUSSO,
GDB INDUSTRIES, L.L.C., GREGORY A.
BECHTOLD and JOHN DOE
DEFENDANTS 1-10,
Defendants.
ORDER
This case comes before the Court without oral argument on Plaintiffs’ Motion and
Supporting Memorandum to Compel Production of Documents (Doc. 81). Defendants
have filed a response in opposition to the motion (Doc. 82).
Plaintiffs sell automobile insurance in the state of Florida (Doc. 1, ¶ 12).
Defendants provide windshield repair services in Florida (Id., ¶¶ 2, 5). According to
Plaintiffs, Defendants have established relationships with Florida car dealerships to gain
access to the customers who visit those dealerships (Id., ¶ 5). Plaintiffs complain that
Defendants use unlawful methods to obtain signatures and insurance information from
the car dealership customers (Id.). Then, Defendants allegedly use this information to

create and submit fraudulent claims for windshield repairs to Plaintiffs (Id.). Defendants
deny Plaintiffs’ allegations of wrongdoing, and counter that Plaintiffs have failed to pay for
windshield repairs, and are engaged in a campaign to defame Defendants (Doc. 77).
Although some, if not all, of the parties appear to operate in more than one state, this
controversy is founded on events that allegedly occurred in Florida (Docs. 1, 77).
Plaintiffs seek an order compelling certain Defendants to provide better responses
to four requests for production (Doc. 81). The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide a
procedure whereby Parties can request the production of documents and electronically
stored information for inspection and copying. FED. R. CIV. P. 34(1)(a). Requests for
production “must describe with reasonable particularity each item or category of items to
be inspected.” FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(1)(A). A party objecting to a request for production
must: (1) “state with specificity the grounds for objecting to the request, including the
reasons;” (2) “state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of
that objection;” and (3) “[a]n objection to part of a request must specify the part and permit
inspection of the rest.” FED. R. CIV. P. 34(b)(2)(B) and (C).
Plaintiffs asked Defendants Douglas Stroh, My Clear View Windshield Repair, Inc.
and Clear Vision Windshield Repairs, LLC (the “Stroh Entities”) to produce:
All documents relating to or reflecting any payments
exchanged between You and any person and/or entity
responsible for or involved with the preparation of bills,
invoices, and/or claims submitted to GEICO through Clear
Vision.
The Stroh Entities responded:
Defendant objects to this request as it is vague. Defendant is
the entity responsible for the preparation of bills, invoices, or
claims to GEICO. As such there could be no “exchange.”
Defendant would further object that such request seeks
information that is not relevant in that it is not reasonably

-2-

calculated to lead to admissible evidence. This request
requires production of Defendant’s payroll records to its
employees and staff. The employees of Defendant are not
parties to this litigation. Although the staff may be involved with
the preparation of the paperwork there is no allegation that the
secretarial staff have committed theft or forgery or any other
fraud. There is no allegation in the Complaint that the hourly
employees of Defendant are paid based on” fraud” or are part
of any of the “fraudulent scheme.”
(Doc. 81-1 at 20-21).
The Stroh Entities argue that the request is “vague” because they prepare the bills,
invoices and claims submitted to Plaintiffs and consequently, no payments are
“exchanged” with anyone else (Doc. 82 at 7). Assuming the Stroh Entities explanation of
the facts is correct, this does not make the request vague.
Next, the Stroh Entities represent that they are not withholding any responsive
documents because there are none (Id.)1. This is inconsistent with their admission that
there are responsive payroll records which they contend are not relevant. “Relevancy is
determined based on the ‘tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be
without the evidence, and the fact is of consequence in determining the action.’ FED. R.
EVID. 401”. Hankinson v. R.T.G. Furniture Corp., No. 15-81139-civ-Cohn/Seltzer, 2016
WL 1182768, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 2016) (quoting Garcia v. Padilla, No. 2:15-cv-735FtM-29CM, 2016 WL 881143, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2016)). In discovery, “requiring
relevance to a claim or defense ‘signals to the court that it has the authority to confine
discovery to the claims and defenses asserted in the pleadings, and signals to the parties
that they have no entitlement to discovery to develop new claims or defenses that are not
already identified in the pleadings.’” Builders Flooring Connection, LLC v. Brown

In their response to the motion to compel, the Stroh Defendants state: “Defendants are not
withholding documents because there really could not be any.” (Doc. 82 at 7).
1

-3-

Chambless Architects, No. 2:11-CV-373-MHT, 2014 WL 1765102, at *1 (M.D. Ala. May 1,
2014) (quoting GAP Report of Advisory Committee to 2000 amendments to Rule 26). “As
the Advisory Committee Notes say, ‘[t]he Committee intends that the parties and the court
focus on the actual claims and defenses involved in the action.’” Liese v. Indian River Cty.
Hosp. Dist., 701 F.3d 334, 355 (11th Cir. 2012) (quoting the GAP Report). After reviewing
the current record, the Court is not persuaded that the payroll records are relevant to the
parties’ claims and defenses. Accordingly, the Stroh entities’ objection to production of
the payroll records is SUSTAINED.
To eliminate ambiguity and ensure compliance with this request, the Stroh Entities
shall, within fourteen days from the rendition of this Order either produce all documents
with the exception of payroll records that are responsive to this request or certify to
Plaintiffs in writing that, with the exception of the payroll records, there are no responsive
documents.
Plaintiffs also asked the Stroh Entities to produce:
All documents relating to or reflecting communications
Between You and any person and/or entity responsible for or
involved with the physical provision of the Glass Services.
The Stroh Entities responded:
Defendant objects to this request as it is vague and overly
broad. The use of “documents” in this request is not specific
enough to advise Defendant of what category of documents it
is actually seeking. Defendant objects that this request is not
limited to a time or scope. Such request seeks information
that is not relevant in that it is not reasonably calculated to
lead to admissible evidence. As worded this request seeks
every e-mail, letter, note, note regarding a conversation,
invoice, every note about an invoice, every data entry, etc. in
all twenty states where Defendant has operated covering
every employee, contractor and licensee in those states about
any topic, whether the communication was about dinner,
medical treatment, personal issues, a person’s spouse, etc.

-4-

(Doc. 81-1 at 22). Defendants believe that prior to the filing of the motion to compel, they
reached an agreement with Plaintiffs which resolves their objections to this request (Doc.
82 at 10-11; Doc. 82-1). Based upon the email exchange provided by Defendants, it
appears they may be correct. Now, the motion to compel this request is DENIED without
prejudice. If necessary, Plaintiffs may renew their motion to compel this request.
Next, Plaintiffs asked the Stroh Entities to produce:
All documents relating to or reflecting any payments
exchanged between You and any person and/or entity
responsible for or involved with the physical provision of the
Glass Services.
The Stroh Entities’ responded:
Defendant objects to this request as it is vague and overly
broad. The use of “documents” in this request is not specific
enough to advise Defendant of what category of documents it
is actually seeking. Defendant objects that this request is not
limited to a time or scope. Such request seeks information that
is not relevant in that it is not reasonably calculated to lead to
admissible evidence. Defendant infers from the Complaint that
the allegations in this lawsuit are limited to certain claims for
repairs performed in Florida only. This request would include
payments made to employees, contractors, and licensees in
other states which are not a party to this litigation nor are
those services a part of this litigation. Further, this request is
not limited to payments related to the providing of glass
repairs. As worded this request would require production of
any check written to a licensee in Michigan for the
reimbursement of mileage or lunch. This request seeks
discovery regarding claims in all twenty states wherein
Defendant has operated. Any payments made in the other
states and in Florida which are not alleged to be part of the
“fraudulent scheme” are not relevant to this litigation. Further,
the licensees’ compensation is not relevant to any issue in the
present action. The amount of a licensee’s or a licensee’s
employee’s compensation is not relevant to any issue in this
action.
(Doc. 81-1 at 22-23).
To the extent the Stroh Entities assertions that this request is “vague and overly

-5-

broad” are standalone objections they are “’meaningless, and are deemed without merit
….” Siddiq v. Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp., No. 6:11–cv–69–Orl–19GJK, 2011 WL 6936485,
at *3 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2011) (quoting Milinazzo v. State Farm Ins. Co., 247 F.R.D. 691,
695 (S.D. Fla. 2007)).
Plaintiffs included the following definition of “document” in their requests for
production:
any written, recorded or tangible graphic matter, or any other
means of preserving thought, expression or communication,
whether handwritten, typed, printed, electronically or
otherwise created, including telephone slips and logs, diary
entries, calendars, reports, correspondence, memoranda,
notes, electronic mail, video tapes, video cartridges, audio
tapes, electronic recordings of any kind, photographs,
computer tapes, computer diskettes and disks, computer hard
drives or servers, and any transcriptions and printouts in Your
possession, custody or control.
(Doc. 82 at 8). The breadth of this definition does not render the request vague. Plaintiffs
clearly seek all information, in whatever form, that reflects payments made to anyone
involved in providing “Glass Services,” which is defined as “any and all windshield repair
and/or replacement services for which reimbursement was sought through the Stroh
Entities.” (Id.).
The Court agrees with the Stroh Entities that the scope of the request is overbroad.
It is not limited to any particular time frame, geographic location, or insurance company. It
also encompasses payroll and other payments that appear at this time to be
disproportional to the needs of the case. Accordingly, the Stroh Entities’ objections are
SUSTAINED in part. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Defendants “fraudulent scheme”
began in 2014 (Doc. 1, ¶ 52). Therefore, the request is limited to payments made between
January 1, 2014 and the present for windshield services provided, or allegedly provided, in

-6-

the state of Florida. The request is further limited to payments made in connection with
windshield services rendered or allegedly provided to Plaintiffs’ insureds. With these
limitations, the Stroh Entities shall produce the requested information to Plaintiffs within
fourteen days from the rendition of this Order.
Lastly, Plaintiffs asked Defendants Gregory Bechtold and GDB Industries, Inc. (the
“Field Defendants”) to produce:
All documents relating to communications between You and
an automobile dealership at which the Glass Services were
purportedly performed, including any representatives,
employees, or agents thereof.
The Field Defendants responded:
Defendant objects to this request as such is overbroad and
vague in that the request is not seeking a particular class of
documents, nor is it limited to any particular scope or time
frame. As worded, the request would necessarily include such
things as sales flyers or promotional materials that Defendants
received in the mail from the dealerships. By the use of the
terms “all documents relating to” Defendant is unable to
determine what types of documents are being requested.
Further, Defendant objects to this request to the extent such
request would include information that is not relevant nor likely
to lead to any admissible evidence because this request is not
limited to issues involved in the litigation. For example, this
request would require production of e-mails or text messages
concerning the location for happy hour after work between the
Defendant’s representatives and the dealerships
representatives.
Defendant will produce all e-mails, letters, memorandum
exchanged between the dealership and Defendant
concerning a GEICO insured or any allegation made by a
customer of fraudulent conduct against Defendant.
(Doc. 81-1 at 85).
The Field Defendants objections that this request is overbroad and vague because
it does not particularize the “class of documents” sought is OVERRULED. The Field

-7-

Defendants’ scope objections are SUSTAINED in part. This request is limited to
communications with dealerships located in the state of Florida that occurred between
January 1, 2014 and the present. The breadth of documents requested is also
disproportional to the needs of the case. The Fields Defendants shall produce documents
which reflect: (1) the terms, if any, of their business relationships with the Florida
dealerships; (2) documents which reflect payments made to or received from the Florida
dealerships; (3) communications which concern complaints made to the Florida
dealerships about the Fields Defendants’ activities; (4) complaints made by the Florida
dealerships about the Fields Defendants’ activities; (5) compliments made to the Florida
dealerships about the Fields Defendants’ activities; (6) compliments made by the Florida
dealerships about the Fields Defendants’ activities; and (7) documents exchanged
between the Florida dealerships and the Fields Defendants concerning anyone insured
by Plaintiffs or any allegation made by a customer of fraudulent conduct against any of
the Fields Defendants. The Fields Defendants shall make this production within fourteen
days from the rendition of this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on July 7, 2017.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-8-