Kafie v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Filing
60
ORDER granting in part 43 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Documents; denying 49 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Deposition of Wanda Lewis-Baldwin. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrea M. Simonton on 10/6/2011. (AMS)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 11-21251-CIV-ALTONAGA/SIMONTON
GABY KAFIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCE CO.,
Defendant.
/
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL
This matter arose upon the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents
(DE # 43) and the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Wanda Lewis-Baldwin (DE #
49). The Defendant has filed a Response to both Motions (DE ## 52, 55), and the Plaintiff
has filed a Reply to the Motion to Compel Production of Documents (DE # 56). The
Honorable Cecilia M. Altonaga, United States District Judge, has referred this matter to
the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge (DE # 9). A hearing was held on the
Motions on October 6, 2011 wherein the undersigned orally ruled on the Motions. This
Order sets forth and incorporates those rulings. Accordingly, for the reasons stated at
the hearing and as set forth below, the undersigned grants the Motion to Compel
Production of Documents, in part, and Denies the Motion to Compel the Deposition of
Wanda Lewis-Baldwin.
I.
BACKGROUND
This matter was initiated when the Plaintiff filed a two-count Complaint alleging
that Defendant Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company acted in bad-faith in its
handling of an insurance claim filed by the Plaintiff pursuant to a disability-income
policy issued by the Defendant. Prior to the initiation of the instant action, Plaintiff Kafie
had prevailed against the Defendant at trial in a breach of contract action arising from
the Defendant’s termination of the payment of benefits and demand for reimbursement
of benefit payments for the claims made by the Plaintiff under that same disabilityincome policy. See Kafie v. Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co., Case No. 09-20948-CIVUNGARO.
The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff’s Complaint which was
granted by the Court, and the Plaintiff then filed a one-count Amended Complaint
alleging that the Defendant violated various Florida Statutes by handling the Plaintiff’s
disability insurance claim in bad faith (DE # 24 at 9).
The Plaintiff has now filed two Motions to Compel seeking to compel the
production of certain personnel files, as well as the deposition of Wanda Lewis-Baldwin,
one of the claims adjusters who was involved in processing the Plaintiff’s insurance
claim.
II.
MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF PERSONNEL FILES
A.
The Arguments of the Parties
The Plaintiff filed this Motion seeking to compel the production of documents
responsive to Request No. 18 of the Plaintiff’s First Set of Requests for Production
which requested the personnel files of any person employed by the Defendant who
participated in the handling of the Plaintiff’s disability claim (DE # 43 at 2). The Request
specifically excluded any production of medical information of the various personnel,
but expressly sought, among other things, the production of the original employment
applications and educational records of those employees.
Both in its written response to the Plaintiff’s Request for Production and in its
2
opposition to the Motion to Compel, the Defendant contended that the request was
overbroad because it sought all materials, other than medical information, contained in
the employee files, much of which was not relevant to the claims being litigated. In
addition, the Defendant asserted that production of the requested information would
violate the privacy rights of the Defendant’s employees. Finally, the Defendant objected
to the request as unduly burdensome to the extent that it sought the files for all
employees who may have participated in the handling of the Plaintiff’s claims, which the
Defendant estimated to be more than twenty employees.
In Reply, the Plaintiff asserted that Counsel for Mr. Kafie had already stipulated to
the confidentiality of any personnel files produced and contended that the Defendant
had failed to demonstrate that the request was unduly burdensome.
At the hearing on the Motion, the Plaintiff clarified that it only sought the
personnel files for six employees of the Defendant and thus contended that the request
was relatively limited and not burdensome. In addition, the Plaintiff confirmed that he
did not seek to obtain the medical files of the Defendant’s employees and also confirmed
the he had agreed to abide by a confidentiality agreement regarding limiting the use of
the employee files only for purposes of this litigation. Further, the Plaintiff argued that
the information contained in these files was relevant to the central issue in this matter
regarding whether the Defendant properly handled the processing of the Plaintiff’s
claim, specifically, for example, whether the adjusters involved in processing the claim
were qualified to evaluate the Plaintiff’s claim, and whether they had incentives to deny
claims or use inadequate methods for evaluating the claims.
In response, the Defendant generally argued that the employee records should
not be disclosed and again specifically argued that personal information of the
3
employees was not relevant to this action and that disclosure of such information would
violate those employees’ privacy rights.
B.
Analysis
Based upon the claims at issue in this case and as stated at the hearing, the
undersigned concludes that evaluation of the work performance and discipline of the
relevant employees, as well as the education and training of those employees may be
relevant to ascertaining why the Plaintiff’s claim was handled in a particular manner.
Similarly, the compensation paid to those adjusters/employees may be relevant to
determining whether, in processing or disposing of claims, including the Plaintiff’s
claim, the adjusters were motivated by financial incentives or bonuses.
Accordingly, as ruled at the hearing, the undersigned concludes that to the extent
that the requested personal files contain information regarding how the employees
handle claims, how the employees were compensated and evaluated, and the
employees’ education and training and handling of other claims, the files may be
relevant and thus are discoverable. This ruling is consistent with various other
decisions of this Court. See, e.g., Johnson v. Geico General Ins. Co., No. 07-80310-CIV,
2007 WL 3344253 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 7, 2007); Simon v. Pronational Ins. Co., No. 07-60757CIV, 2007 WL 4893477 (S.D. Fla. Nov. 1, 2007); Nowak v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 05-21682CIV, 2006 WL 3613766 (S.D. Fla. Jun. 12, 2006). Therefore, the Defendant shall produce
the personnel files of those persons identified at the hearing who were involved in the
determination of the denial of benefits to the Plaintiff, including information related to
those employees’ job performance, compensation, evaluation, discipline, training,
4
educational background, work duties and hours of work.1 However, the Defendant may
redact personal information not relevant to those issues, including medical information,
life insurance, family information and investment information to the extent it does not
reflect the compensation paid by the Defendant to that employee. The Defendant must
make clear that certain information has been redacted and must identify the nature of
that information, e.g., social security numbers, familial details, etc.
II.
MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION OF WANDA LEWIS-BALDWIN
A.
The Position of the Parties
In the Motion to Compel, the Plaintiff requested that the Court compel Ms.
Baldwin, a claims adjuster involved in the denial of benefits for the Plaintiff, to appear for
a deposition. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant had previously agreed to produce
Ms. Lewis-Baldwin for a deposition but now would not produce her because the
Defendant contended that she was on disability leave, but did not disclose the nature of
that disability.
In Response, Counsel for the Defendant asserted that neither the Defendant’s
representatives nor the Defendant’s counsel could force Ms. Lewis-Baldwin, who is not
an officer of the Defendant Corporation, to appear at a deposition because she is on
disability leave (DE # 55 at 2). Counsel for the Defendant indicated that neither he nor
the client representatives of the Defendant knew the nature of Ms. Lewis-Baldwin’s
disability; nor could they find out absent a court order due to medical privacy
1
The persons identified at the hearing were Dr. David Zimmerman, Joel Lucas,
Wanda Baldwin-Lewis, Cheryl Cox-Newsome, and Neil Kern. Dr. Marilyn Cale was also
identified but she is not an employee of the Defendant. In addition, as stated below, as
to Ms. Baldwin-Lewis, the Defendant must produce the personal contact and medical
information portions of her personnel file.
5
protections.
Prior to the hearing, the Defendant filed a medical opinion from one of Ms. LewisBaldwin’s treating physicians that provided a conclusory opinion that she is not well
enough to be deposed in this action (DE # 58 at 5). The opinion did not provide any
information regarding the nature or expected duration of her disability.
At the hearing, the Plaintiff acknowledged that the letter from Ms. LewisBaldwin’s physician demonstrated that the Defendant was unable to produce her for a
deposition. In addition, Counsel for the Defendant stated that when he agreed to
produce Ms. Baldwin for a deposition, he was not aware that Ms. Baldwin was not
working because of her disability.
B.
Analysis
Under the facts of this case, as stated at the hearing and for the following
reasons, the undersigned denies the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Ms. Lewis-Baldwin for
deposition. Defendant’s Counsel does not represent Ms. Lewis-Baldwin and does not
have control over her. Thus, Ms. Baldwin-Lewis must be subpoenaed to appear at a
deposition. However, because Counsel for the Defendant does not have the authority to
accept a subpoena on her behalf, the Plaintiff must serve Ms. Lewis-Baldwin personally
in order to procure her attendance at a deposition. To that end, the Defendant shall
immediately provide Ms. Lewis-Baldwin’s contact information including her home
address, telephone numbers and list of family members with whom she resides, to the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff may serve a subpoena on Ms. Lewis-Baldwin and take her
deposition any time prior to trial. The discovery period, which ended on August 24,
6
2011, is only extended with regard to taking Ms. Baldwin’s deposition.2
In addition, the undersigned notes that although the Court accepts the note
submitted from Ms. Lewis-Baldwin’s physician as establishing that she is on disability
and to demonstrate that the Defendant does not have control over Ms. Baldwin, the note
is insufficient to establish that she is unable to provide testimony prior to trial. Thus, the
Court does not reach the issue of whether Ms. Lewis-Baldwin is medically unable to
attend a deposition prior to the trial, rather, because Counsel for both Parties agreed to
Ms. Lewis-Baldwin’s deposition being taken after the discovery period, the Court only
determines that the Plaintiff must subpoena Ms. Lewis-Baldwin to secure her presence
at that deposition, rather than having the Defendant compelled to produce her for a
deposition.
Finally, unlike the other personnel files, the medical information contained in Ms.
Lewis-Baldwin’s personnel file is relevant because she has raised the issue of her
medical condition for purposes of not being required to appear for a deposition.
Therefore, the Defendant must produce the entire personnel file for Ms. Baldwin
including her medical information contained in the file. However, based upon the
request of defense counsel, her social security number may be redacted.
III.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, based upon a review of the record as a whole and for the reasons
stated on the record at the hearing, it is hereby
2
The undersigned is aware that the Defendant’s Motion for Enlargement of PreTrial Deadlines requesting that the discovery period be extended by sixty days was
denied by the Court (DE # 46). However, in that Order the Court stated that the Parties
could by agreement extend the time to complete discovery. Thus, the instant Order does
not alter that ruling but rather permits the Parties to seek Court relief related to issues
arising from Ms. Lewis-Baldwin’s deposition.
7
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of
Documents (DE # 43) is GRANTED, in part. The Defendant shall produce the
requested personnel files with appropriate redactions as described above, on or before
the close of business on Friday, October 7, 2011, for any witness scheduled to be
deposed on Monday, October 10, 2011. The personnel file for any witness scheduled to
be deposed on Tuesday, October 11, 2011, shall be produced by the close of business
on Monday, October 10, 2011. The remainder of the personnel files shall be produced by
the close of business on Wednesday, October 12, 2011. That production shall include
Ms. Lewis-Baldwin’s personnel file, including her personal contact and medical
information contained in that file.
It is further
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of
Wanda Lewis-Baldwin is DENIED. However, the Plaintiff may seek to depose Ms. LewisBaldwin by serving a subpoena personally on Ms. Lewis-Baldwin. In addition, the
Defendant shall provide the contact information for Ms. Lewis-Baldwin as set forth
above forthwith, and in no event later than noon on Friday, October 7, 2011.
DONE AND ORDERED in chambers in Miami, Florida, on October 6, 2011.
ANDREA M. SIMONTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
The Honorable Cecilia M. Altonaga,
United States District Judge
All counsel of record via CM/ECF
8
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?