AMW Sports, LLC et al

Filing 37

RULING denying 32 Motion to Quash Records Deposition of CAP LLC. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 12/30/2011. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

AMW SPORTS, LLC D/B/A THE
ATHLETE’S FOOT

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER 10-651-SCR

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY
RULING ON MOTION TO QUASH RECORDS DEPOSITION
Before the court is the Motion to Quash Records Deposition of
CAP LLC.

Record document number 32.

The motion is opposed.1

There is no need to set out in detail the procedural history
of the case and events which let to filing this motion.

A brief

summary is sufficient. Plaintiffs seek recovery from the defendant
for the cost of repairing a hole in the wall of the store operated
by AMW Sports, LLC, allegedly caused by burglars.

Defendant

specifically pled as an affirmative defense in its answer the
“other insurance” provision of its policy.

Defendant has been

asking the plaintiffs for the identity of the owner of the building
who or which leased the property to AMW since at least July 2011.
Defendant’s need for the information is and was obvious: so it
could find out whether the owner had insurance which covered
physical damage to the building.
least

indications,

from

the

Despite repeated promises, or at

plaintiffs

and

counsel

for

the

plaintiffs that the information would be provided, the plaintiffs

1

Record document number 36.

did not provide it until December 9, 2011.

Defendant promptly

issued a deposition subpoena to the owner to obtain certified
copies of the lease and any property insurance policies for the
property.
Plaintiff’s

arguments

in

support

of

their

motion

disingenuous and unpersuasive in these circumstances.

are

The lease

information sought should have been provided by the plaintiffs
long, long ago.

Their failure to do so could arguably - and may

yet - be the basis for striking their claim for recovery of the
cost

to

repair

Fed.R.Civ.P.

the

damaged

wall

pursuant

to

Rule

37(c)(1),

(If fact, allowing the defendant to obtain the

insurance information from the owner, even at this late date, may
ultimately be advantageous to the plaintiffs because they may be
able to show that their failure to timely produce it was harmless.)
For essentially the reasons argued by the defendant, the
plaintiffs’ motion has no merit.
Accordingly,

the

plaintiffs’

Motion

to

Quash

Records

Deposition of CAP LLC is denied.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, December 30, 2011.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2