Illiana Surgery and Medical Center LLC v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company
Filing
261
OPINION AND ORDER 250 MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision by a District Judge re 249 Order on Motion for Leave to File, Order on Motion to Compel, Order on Motion for Protective Order, filed by Hartford Fire Insurance Company is OVERRULED and 251 MOTION for Hearing re 250 MOTION for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision by a District Judge filed by Hartford Fire Insurance Company is DENIED. Signed by Judge Joseph S Van Bokkelen on 9/18/12. (kjp)
United States District Court
Northern District of Indiana
Hammond Division
ILLIANA SURGERY AND
)
MEDICAL CENTER LLC, n/k/a
)
HEARTLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL LLC; )
and IHEALTHCARE INC.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
Civil Action No. 2:07-CV-3 JVB
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Hartford Fire Insurance Company’s
objections to Magistrate Judge Andrew Rodovich’s order of June 5, 2012 (DE 250). In that
order Judge Rodovich granted the motion of Plaintiffs Illiana Surgery and Medical Center and
iHealthcare (“Illiana”) to compel Hartford to designate a witness for deposition pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) (DE 227) and denied Hartford’s motion for a protective
order (DE 229). Hartford has also moved for a hearing on its objections (DE 251).
A.
Background
On December 9 or 10, 2004, someone accessed and destroyed Illiana’s medical
management computer system. Hartford was Illiana’s insurer under a policy that covered lost
business personal property and electronic vandalism. Illiana filed a claim with Hartford.
Hartford investigated the claim, but has not issued a coverage determination letter. Illiana sued
Hartford on December 7, 2006, alleging breach of the insurance contract and breach of its duty
of good faith and fair dealing.
Throughout the course of this litigation, Illiana has been attempting to secure all
documents related to Hartford’s adjustment of its claim. Hartford has complied with this request
in piecemeal fashion. Hartford’s belated production of some 400 pages of claims documents a
week before the deposition of Kevin Pugliese, an attorney with the law firm of Fisher Kanaris
who assisted Hartford in the investigation of the claim, resulted in this Court’s order of
September 2, 2011, reopening discovery for Illiana alone until March 1, 2012.
On October 4, 2011, Illiana sent Hartford a deposition notice pursuant to Federal Rule of
Procedure 30(b)(6). The notice required Hartford to designate a representative to testify as to its
method of storing its electronic documents and its efforts to locate documents related to the
lawsuit for the period from December 10, 2004, to the present. In February 2012, when
Hartford had not designated a witness for the deposition or agree to a date, Illiana sent a new
Rule 30(b)(6) notice identical to the first except that it set the date for the deposition as February
22, 2012. On February 14, 2012, Hartford notified Illiana that it was still working on dates, but
would not produce a witness on February 22. Illiana then filed its motion to compel Hartford to
designate a witness. Hartford opposed the motion to compel and filed its own motion for a
protective order. After Magistrate Judge Rodovich granted the former and denied the latter,
Hartford filed timely objections.
B.
Standard of Review
In considering objections to a magistrate judge’s order on a nondispositive matter, a
2
district court may modify or set it aside only if it is “clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Under the clear error standard a district court can overturn a magistrate
judge’s ruling only if the district court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake
has been made. Weeks v. Samsung Heavy Indus. Co., Ltd. 126 F.3d 926, 943 (7th Cir. 1997).
Under the contrary to law standard, the district court undertakes a plenary review of purely legal
determinations, setting them aside only if the magistrate judge applied an incorrect legal
standard, or if it misapplied the relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure, Barton v.
Zimmer Inc., 2008 WL 2484604, *1 (N.D. Ind., June 19, 2008).
C.
Discussion
Hartford’s first objection is directed to the statement in Magistrate Judge Rodovich’s
opinion that “[t]he retention of documents also may be pertinent to Illiana’s bad faith claim.”
(DE 249 at 11.) Hartford argues that litigation conduct is irrelevant to Illiana’s bad faith claim.
Even assuming that Hartford is correct that its litigation conduct is not relevant to the bad faith
claim, it ignores the fact that Illiana seeks discovery of Hartford’s retention policies beginning
two years before Illiana sued Hartford. The Court finds no error in Judge Rodovich’s statement.
Hartford next objects to Magistrate Judge Rodovich’s statement that “it is irrelevant that
the Federal Rules did not require production of such information before 2006.” (DE 249 at 10.)
Hartford maintains that because it wasn’t required to produce electronically stored information
before December 2006, it is improper to allow Illiana to conduct discovery regarding its policies
for retaining electronically stored information before December 2006. However, the premise on
which Hartford’s argument is based is false. The Advisory Committee Notes to the 2006
3
amendments to Rule 34 state that even before the 2006 amendments “[l]awyers and judges
interpreted the term ‘documents’ to include electronically stored information because it was
obviously improper to allow a party to evade discovery obligations on the basis that the label had
not kept pace with changes in information technology.” Accordingly, the Court finds no reason
to limit Illiana’s inquiry as to Hartford’s document retention policies to December 2006 and
after.
Hartford’s final objection is that Magistrate Judge Rodovich erred by not accepting its
proposal that Illiana undertake its discovery by means of interrogatories or a deposition upon
written questions instead of conducting a conventional deposition. The Court finds no clear
error in the determination that Illiana’s chosen method of discovery is not unduly burdensome.
D.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Hartford’s objections to Magistrate Judge Rodovich’s order of
June 5, 2012 (DE 250), are overruled. Hartford’s motion for a hearing on its objections is denied
(DE 251).
SO ORDERED on September 18, 2012.
s/ Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
Joseph S. Van Bokkelen
United States District Judge
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?