Tibbetts Lumber Co., LLC v. Amerisure Insurance Company
Filing
58
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 47 Motion to Compel; denying 50 Motion for Protective Order and to Stay Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone on 9/15/2020. (BEE)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
TIBBETTS LUMBER CO., LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 8:19-cv-1275-T-35AAS
AMERISURE MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant.
______________________________________/
ORDER
Tibbetts Lumber Co., LLC (Tibbetts) moves to compel certain discovery
responses. (Doc. 47). Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company (Amerisure) opposes
Tibbett’s motion. (Doc. 49). Amerisure moves for a protective order and to stay
discovery. (Doc. 50). Tibbetts opposes Amerisure’s motion. (Doc. 51).
The court held a hearing on the parties’ motions. (Doc. 57). As stated at the
hearing,
(1)
Amerisure’s motion for protective order and to stay discovery (Doc. 50)
is DENIED. Amerisure argues that discovery of an insurer’s claims files and policies
is not permitted. Tibbetts alleges Amerisure did not properly investigate Tibbetts’
workers’ compensation claims under the parties’ contract. Tibbetts seeks information
related to how Amerisure handled Tibbetts’ employees’ workers’ compensation claims
to determine how it investigates these claims. Amerisure’s claims files and policies
for investigating workers’ compensation claims are within the scope of discovery.
1
Amerisure has not demonstrated that a protective order is appropriate. Likewise,
Amerisure’s failed to establish that its pending motion for summary judgment
warrants staying discovery.
(2)
Tibbetts’ motion to compel (Doc. 47) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part.
(a)
As agreed by the parties, the “Relevant Period” is from January
2011 through December 2018.
(b)
The motion to compel an answer to interrogatory no. 2 is granted
to the extent that Amerisure must list the names and claims for the four Tibbetts’
employees Tibbetts previously identified to Amerisure as exemplars. Amerisure must
also list the names only for the remaining one hundred forty-seven workers’
compensation claimants employed by Tibbetts.
(c)
The motion to compel an answer to interrogatory no. 3 is granted
to the extent that Amerisure must provide a list of the names of workers’
compensation claimants employed by Tibbetts for whom Amerisure denied claims.
(d)
The motion to compel answers to interrogatory nos. 4 and 5 is
(e)
The motion to compel an answer to interrogatory no. 6 is granted
denied.
to the extent it seeks identification of the Amerisure employees assigned to
investigate the workers’ compensation claims of the four Tibbetts’ employees Tibbetts
identified to Amerisure as exemplars.
2
(f)
The motion to compel an answer to interrogatory no. 7 is granted
to the extent Amerisure must list every workers’ compensation claim associated with
a Tibbetts’ employee in which medical records that predate the workers’
compensation claimant’s alleged date of injury were requested by Amerisure.
(g)
The motion to compel an answer to interrogatory no. 11 is denied.
(h)
The motion to compel an answer to interrogatory nos. 13 and 14
(i)
The motion to compel an answer to interrogatory no. 15 is granted
is denied.
to the extent that Amerisure must provide a list of any “Special Investigations Unit”
employees involved in Amerisure’s handling of the one hundred fifty-one workers’
compensation claimants employed by Tibbetts. The list also must identify the
claimant and the nature of the claim.
(j)
The motion to compel an answer to interrogatory no. 18 is denied.
(k)
The motion to compel an answer to interrogatory no. 19 is granted
as limited to Amerisure identifying every instance in which Amerisure reported a
situation regarding a Tibbetts employee’s workers’ compensation fraud to a Florida
government authority.
(l)
The motion to compel an answer interrogatory no. 20 is denied.
(m)
The motion to compel the production of documents responsive to
requests for production nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 are denied without prejudice to Tibbetts
making more specific and narrower requests.
3
(n)
The motion to compel the production of documents responsive to
request for production no. 6 is granted.
(o)
The motion to compel the production of documents responsive to
requests for production nos. 8, 9, 13, and 14 is granted as to any written policies and
procedures.
(p)
Amerisure must revise its privilege log to include the purpose and
the subject of the allegedly privileged documents.
(3)
Tibbett’s request for attorney’s fees and costs is denied. See Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37(a)(5)(C).
ORDERED in Tampa, Florida on September 15, 2020.
4
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?