RPM Pizza, LLC v. Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company

Filing 128

RULING granting in part and denying in part 98 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 8/19/2013. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RPM PIZZA, LLC D/B/A
DOMINO’S PIZZA

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER 10-684-BAJ-SCR

ARGONAUT GREAT CENTRAL
INSURANCE COMPANY
RULING ON MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
Before the court is Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company’s
Motion to Compel Discovery Directed to Domino’s filed by defendant
Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company.
98.

Record document number

The motion is opposed.1
This discovery dispute arises out of interrogatories and

requests for production of documents served by Argonaut on Domino’s
on December 17, 2012.2

The discovery requests relate to Domino’s

claim to recover its defense costs and expenses in the Spillman
action.3
background

In this ruling it is unnecessary to set forth the
information

of

these

related

actions,

as

if

was

summarized in the rulings on the parties’ motions for summary
judgment and motions for reconsideration.4

1

Record document number 107.

2

Record document number 98-4, Exhibits A and B.

3

Civil Action Number 10-349-BAJ-SCR.

4

Record document numbers 110 and 126.

Based on the present record, Domino’s opposing arguments based
on relevancy and prematurity clearly have no merit. In the rulings
issued

on

the

parties’

summary

judgment

motions

the

court

determined that the amount of reasonable defense expenses and costs
owed to Domino’s is genuinely disputed and must be resolved at the
trial.
The

remaining

arguments

related

to

Argonaut’s

discovery

requests are resolved as follows:
Interrogatory Number 1.

Argonaut asked Domino’s to identify

each law firm and persons associated with that firm who provided
legal services and to provide their addresses.
that

needs

to

be

addressed

is

Domino’s

The only objection
argument

that

the

information has been provided, because each person who charged time
for the Spillman case is identified on the bills that Domino’s has
already supplied to Argonaut.
The information requested by Argonaut is relevant.

Argonaut

may be able to obtain most, if not all, of the information from a
review of the bills.

However, it is still reasonable to require

that Domino’s provide the name and business address of each law
firm and attorney who is providing the legal services for which
Domino’s is claiming reimbursement under Argonaut’s Commercial
General Liability Policy.

It is not apparent that the burden of

deriving this information from the records would be substantially

2

the same for both parties.5

As to this interrogatory it is

reasonable to find that the burden on Argonaut would be greater.
Domino’s knows what firms and attorneys are doing the work in the
Spillman case and can readily provide it by simply answering the
question.
Interrogatory Numbers 2 and 3; Requests for Production Numbers
1 and 7.

Argonaut requested that Domino’s provide information and

documents related to the law firms’ and attorneys’ experience
representing parties in connection with TCPA claims, other than in
the Spillman action.

Argonaut also requested information and

documents

any

related

information

and

to

documents

fee

agreements.

sought

about

In

summary,

experience

and

the
fee

agreements are relevant to the issue of determining the amount of
reasonable defense costs that Domino’s is entitled to recover.
Domino’s is required to serve supplemental answers and responses to
these discovery requests.

If believes there is good cause, it can

promptly file a motion for a protective order to address any
concerns it has about the confidentiality of these types of
information.6
Other than its blanket objections that are now foreclosed by
the summary judgment rulings and other unsupported objections,
Domino specifically objected to the discovery related to TCPA

5

Rule 33(d), Fed.R.Civ.P.

6

See Rule 26(c)(1), Fed.R.Civ.P.
3

experience by stating that the information and documents are not
within its possession, custody or control, and are more readily
obtained from another source. Presumably, Domino’s is referring to
the law firms providing the legal services.

Although Domino’s

itself may not possess the information and documents, it is
reasonable to conclude that it can readily obtain them from the
attorneys and/or law firms representing it in the Spillman case.
Given this fact, it is unreasonable to require Argonaut to incur
the delay and expense of having to subpoena the information and
documents from Domino’s attorneys.
Interrogatory Numbers 4 and 7; Request for Production Numbers
2 and 6.

These interrogatories and document requests called for

Domino’s to produce information and documents related to: (1)
billing guidelines Domino’s may have given its counsel in the
Spillman

action;

and,

(2)

whether

any

other

parties

besides

Argonaut have paid for the legal services Domino’s obtained in
connection with the Spillman case.

Domino’s answered/responded

that it does not have any information and documents responsive to
these interrogatories and requests for production.

Thus, there is

no basis for the court to order Domino’s to provide anything
further in response to these discovery requests.
Interrogatories 5 and 6; Requests for Production Numbers 3, 4
and 5.

Through these five discovery requests, Argonaut attempted

to obtain information and documents that reflect the invoices,

4

bills, and/or charges to Domino’s for legal fees, costs and
expenses, and conversely what Domino’s or others have already paid
for the fees, costs and expenses, in connection with its defense in
the Spillman case.

Argonaut acknowledged that Domino’s provided

information regarding the bills for which it seeks reimbursement,
and allowed Argonaut’s auditor to review billing information, but
argued that all of the information was not provided.

Argonaut

cited one example - copies of bills with 51 entries redacted - and
asserted that it is entitled to review the redacted information.7
Domino’s countered that it has sent and continues to send
detailed invoices to Argonaut.

Domino’s agreed that there were

some time entries redacted, but stated that it is not seeking
payment or reimbursement for any time entries that were redacted
from the bills sent to Argonaut.

Domino’s also noted that most of

the redacted time entries were for other matters mistakenly billed
to the Spillman case.8
Given Domino’s statement that it is not attempting to recover
fees, costs or expenses for any of the items redacted, there is no
reason to conclude at this point that they are relevant to Domino’s
claim. Therefore, Domino’s is not required to produce the redacted
information. However, based on the rulings on the parties’ motions

7

Record document number 98-1, Argonaut’s Memorandum in
Support, p. 7.
8

Record document number 107, Domino’s Memorandum in
Opposition, pp. 3, 6, 12-13.
5

for summary judgment and for reconsideration, there is no question
that Domino’s has a present and continuing obligation to timely
provide information and documents in response to Interrogatory
Numbers 5 and 6, and Requests for Production Numbers 3, 4 and 5.
Therefore, to the extent Domino’s has not done so, it must provide
up-to-date

supplemental

answers

and

responses

to

these

interrogatories and requests for production of documents.
Accordingly, the Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company’s
Motion to Compel Discovery Directed to Domino’s is granted in part.
In accordance with this ruling, Domino’s Pizza, LLC is ordered to
provide, without objections, supplemental answers and Interrogatory
Numbers 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, and shall produce for inspection and
copying

all

documents

that

are

responsive

to

Requests

for

Production of Document Numbers 1, 3, 4, 5 and 7, within 14 days.
The remaining aspects of Argonaut’s Motion to Compel are denied.
Under Rule 37(a)(5)(C), Fed.R.Civ.P. each party shall bear its
own costs incurred in connection with this motion.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, August 19, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

6