Jump v. Montgomery County et al

Filing 75

OPINION by U.S. Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins. Defendants' Motion to Quash Plaintiffs' Records Subpoena to the ICRMT 70 is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part. See written order. (LB, ilcd)

E-FILED

Monday, 27 July, 2015 10:36:35 AM
Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION
KARI JUMP,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY,
ILLINOIS, SHERIFF JIM VAZZI,
in his official and individual
capacities, RICK ROBBINS,
KURT ELLER, RICK
FURLONG, DOUG WHITE,
GREGORY NIMMO and
MARY SHIPMAN, in their
individual capacities,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 13-cv-3084

OPINION
TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Quash
Plaintiffs’ Records Subpoena to the ICRMT (d/e 70) (Motion). For the
reasons set forth below, the Motion is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in
part.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Kari Jump alleges employment discrimination and retaliation
claims against the Defendants in violations of her constitutional rights,

Page 1 of 8

pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1866; Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964; and the Illinois Human Rights Act. Second Amended Complaint
(d/e 20); 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 2005e; 775 ILCS 5/1-102. During
discovery in this case, Jump has issued a subpoena for the production of
documents to the Illinois Counties Risk Management Trust (ICRMT).
Motion, Exhibit A, Subpoena addressed to ICRMT, dated June 22, 2015
(Subpoena). Montgomery County is a member of a public entity risk
management pool, the Illinois Counties Risk Management Trust (“ICRMT”),
which is administered by the Insurance Program Managers Group
(“IPMG”). Defendants state that Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants are
covered under the County’s insurance policy issued by ICRMT and
administered by IPMG. Motion, at 2.
The Subpoena commanded the ICRMT to produce:
1. Complete copy of the insurance Policy No. ICRMT2012023 and
all exclusions and declaration pages.
2. Any and all documents relating to conflict waivers in
relationship to any claim brought by Kari Jump against the
Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO), any individual
defendant, agent, and/or employees of the MCSO and/or
Montgomery County.
3. Any and all documents relating to declinations or limitations of
coverage in relationship to any claim brought by Kari Jump.
4. Any reservation of rights letter(s) or correspondence regarding
any claim or notice of claim brought by Kari Jump.
Page 2 of 8

5. Entire insurance claim and investigation file for policy holder
Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office (Policy No.
ICRMT2012023) with respect to any claim made or notice given
relating or referring to Kari Jump, including but not limited to all
paper, electronic, and other documents in their native format.
6. Any and all communications between Illinois Counties Risk
Management Trust and Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office, or
any of its agents, relating to a lawsuit or other claim filed by Kari
Jump against Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office or its agents
or employees.
7. Any and all invoices, receipts, or other documents reflecting
billing requests, requests for payment, or amounts paid for any
legal work performed [on (sic)] any claim filed by Kari Jump
against Montgomery County Sherriff’s (sic) Office or its agents
or employees.
Motion, Exhibit A, Subpoena, attached Documents to be Produced
(Document Request). The Defendants move to quash the Subpoena.
ANALYSIS
As an initial matter, Jump challenges the Defendants’ standing to
move to quash a subpoena directed to a third party. Generally, a party
lacks standing to move to quash a subpoena directed at a third party
unless the party has a claim of privilege attached to the information sought
or unless the production of the information sought implicates a party’s
privacy interests. See Malibu Media, LLC v. John Does 1-14, 287 F.R.D.
513, 516 (N.D. Ind. 2012). In this case, Jump asks for communications
between ICRMT and MCSO regarding the case. Document Request, ¶ 6.
Page 3 of 8

The responsive documents sought include litigation management reports
from trial counsel to the ICRMT. Motion, at 4-5. Defense litigation counsel
in this case represents both the Defendants and the insurer ICRMT. Id.
Under these circumstances, the litigation management reports may be
subject to attorney-client privilege or work product privilege. See Logan v.
Commercial Union Ins. Co., 96 F.3d 971, 976-77 (7th Cir. 1996) (documents
prepared by insurer after lawsuit was filed were protected by work product
privilege); Ready v. Grafton Ferry Boat Co., Inc., 2009 WL 3258183, at *2
(S.D. Ill. October 8, 2009) (communications between insured and insurer
during pending litigation may be subject to attorney-client privilege). The
Defendants, therefore, have a legitimate basis to claim that the Subpoena
seeks documents subject to their claims of privilege. The Defendants have
standing to move to quash the subpoena.
The Defendants move to quash the Subpoena on grounds that the
Subpoena seeks irrelevant material, materials subject to the Defendants’
claims of privilege, and because the Subpoena imposes an undue burden
on ICRMT. The scope of material that may be secured by subpoena is as
broad that as permitted under the discovery rules. See Graham v. Casey’s
General Stores, 206 F.R.D. 251, 253-54 (S.D. Ind. 2002). Relevant
information under the discovery rules consists of admissible evidence or
Page 4 of 8

information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
A defendant must also produce any “insurance agreement under
which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a
possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments
made to satisfy the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iv). The
requirement to produce any insurance agreement is limited to the
agreement. Rule 26(a)(1) does not require the production of any other
document related to insurance. See Resolution Trust Corp. v. Thornton,
41 F.3d 1539, 1547 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (discovery rule production requirement
limited to insurance policy only); Excelsior College v. Frye, 233 F.R.D. 583,
585-86 (S.D. Cal. 2006) (same); 1970 Advisory Committee Note to Rule
26(b)(2) and 1993 Advisory Committee Note to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(D)
(required production of insurance agreement does not include application
for discovery purposes). Any other insurance-related document must meet
the standard test for relevance—the document must be admissible
evidence to prove or defend the claims at issue, or must be reasonably
calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Simon v. G.D. Searle & Co.,
816 F.2d 397, 404 (8th Cir. 1987).

Page 5 of 8

Subpoena Document Request Paragraph 1 asks for a complete copy
of the insurance Policy No. ICRMT2012023 (Policy). The request is
relevant under Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv). The Defendants argue that the request
is unduly burdensome because the Defendants have already produced a
comply copy of the Policy. Jump disputes whether a complete copy has
been produced. The Court, in its discretion, directs ICRMT to produce a
complete copy of the Policy. The burden to produce a copy is minimal, and
the production will resolve any dispute over this matter.
The documents sought by Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 7 are irrelevant.
These all concern the status of the insurance relationship between
Defendants and ICRMT. None of these requests seek evidence of the
claimed discrimination or retaliation, or information reasonably calculated to
lead to discoverable evidence of discrimination or retaliation. Jump says
she seeks these documents to determine whether the Policy contains an
exclusion for employment practices claims. Response to Defendants’
Motion to Quash Records Subpoena to the ICRMT (d/e 74) (Response), at
4-5. She is not seeking the information to find evidence of discrimination or
retaliation or of a defense. She is only entitled to the Policy under Rule
26(a)(1)(A)(iv). All other requests must relate to her claims in this action.
Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 7 do not ask for documents that relate to her
Page 6 of 8

claims of discrimination or retaliation. The Court grants the Motion to
quash these portions of the Subpoena.
Document Request paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Subpoena are unduly
burdensome because the requests are overly broad. The requests ask for
the entire insurance claim file and all communications between agents of
MCSO and ICRMT related to this case or any other claim filed by Jump.
Some of the information requested could lead to admissible evidence, but
many of the responsive documents would contain irrelevant information,
including information about insurance matters covered by paragraphs 2, 3,
4, and 7 of the Document Request. Jump issued the Subpoena to secure
information about insurance matters rather than information about her
claims of the Defendants’ defenses. Response, at 4-5. The Court,
therefore, will quash Document Request paragraphs 5 and 6 in the
Subpoena as overly broad and unduly burdensome.
THEREFORE, Defendants’ Motion to Quash Plaintiffs’ Records
Subpoena to the ICRMT (d/e 70) is ALLOWED in part and DENIED in part.
The Illinois Counties Risk Management Trust is directed to respond to the
Subpoena by producing one complete copy of insurance Policy No.
ICRMT2012023 and all exclusions and declaration pages. The Court
quashes the remainder of the Subpoena and directs that the Illinois
Page 7 of 8

Counties Risk Management Trust shall not be required to produce any
other document.
ENTER:

July 27, 2015

s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Page 8 of 8