Carmena v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company

Filing 18

ORDER denying as to Interrogatory No. 5 and RFP No. 6 13 Motion to Compel and Granted in part as to RFP No. 5, with each party to bear their own costs. Defendant is compelled to respond to RFP No. 5 as modified below, in accordance with a protective order to be entered into between Plaintiff and Defendant and to be filed with this Court within 14 days of this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Richard L. Bourgeois, Jr. on 5/8/2024. (EDC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
DEIDRE SANDERFORD CARMENA

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS
NO. 23-211-JWD-RLB
STATE FARM FIRE AND
CASUALTY COMPANY
ORDER
Before the Court is Deidre Sanderford Carmena’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Compel
Discovery Responses (the “Motion”). (R. Doc. 13). The Motion is opposed. (R. Doc. 15).
I.

Background
On February 8, 2023, Plaintiff initiated a bad faith insurance action against State Farm

Fire and Casualty Company (“Defendant”) in the 19th Judicial District Court in the Parish of East
Baton Rouge, Louisiana. (R. Doc. 1-1 at 1). Plaintiff alleged that (i) Defendant served as the
insurer for a policy covering Plaintiff’s primary residence (the “Property”);1 (ii) she brought a
hail damage claim; (iii) Defendant inspected the Property and said it would not replace the roof
but would provide $2,652.44 worth of shingle replacements; (iv) an independent inspector found
full roof replacement necessary; and (v) Defendant failed to tender full payment for the damage
so that Plaintiff was unable to fully repair her home, causing leak damages. (R. 1-1). In addition
to other acts of bad faith, Plaintiff asserts that Defendant “[a]rbitrarily and erroneously den[ied]
the full extent of hail damages to the [P]roperty[.]” (R. Doc. 1-1 at 2).
Defendant removed this action on March 17, 2023, asserting that this Court can exercise
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (R. Doc. 1). Plaintiff and Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ.

The term “Property” and “Home” are used in the petition and the discovery requests when referring to the insured
building. Unless specifically noted otherwise in this Order, they likewise refer to the same location.
1

1

P. 26(f) conference presumably occurred before June 22, 2023, the date Plaintiff and Defendant
filed their joint status report. (R. Doc. 8). Thus, in compliance with Fed. Rules Civ. P. 26(d)(1),
33, and 34, Plaintiff propounded interrogatories and requests for production (“RFP(s)”) on
Defendant on September 8, 2023. (R. Doc. 13-1). On December 29, 2023, Defendant responded
to the discovery requests. (R. Doc. 13-2). When Plaintiff was not satisfied with Defendant’s
responses, “on February 15, 2024, the parties held a telephone conference in which Plaintiff’s
counsel objected to [Defendant]’s answer to Interrogatory No. 5 and responses to [RFP] Nos. 5
and 6; however, the dispute could not be resolved.” (R. Docs. 13-3; 15 at 2). Thus, Plaintiff filed
the instant Motion, seeking to compel new responses to Interrogatory No. 5 and RFP Nos. 5 and
6. (R. Doc. 13). These are detailed below, along with Defendant’s objections:
Interrogatory No. 5:
Please identify any and all claims submitted to State Farm for the period of March 15,
2022, through May 31, 2022, for roof damage to any Dwelling located within a one (1)
mile radius of the Home, which includes the following streets/roads:
Amy Drive, BR, LA 70810
Anne Marie Drive, BR, LA 70810
Bluebonnet Blvd., BR, LA 70810
Burbank Drive, BR, LA 70810
Christian Paul Avenue, BR, LA 70810
Coy Avenue, BR, LA 70810
Creekside Drive, BR, LA 70810
Cross Creek Avenue, BR, LA 70810
Cross Lake Drive, BR, LA 70810
East Bank Drive, BR, LA 70810
East Lake Drive, BR, LA 70810
Elvin Drive, BR, LA 70810
Fountain Avenue, BR, LA 70810
Gardere Lane, BR, LA 70810
General Beauregard Ave, BR, LA 70810
General Jackson Ave, BR, LA 70810
General Lee Avenue, BR, LA 70810
General Taylor Avenue, BR, LA 70810
Glerma Avenue, BR, LA 70810
Granite Drive, BR, LA 70810
Innovation Park Drive, BR, LA 70810
Jade Avenue, BR, LA 70810

Jasper Avenue, BR, LA 70810
Keel Avenue, BR, LA 70810
Lag Tee Court, BR, LA 70810
Lake Mist Avenue, BR, LA 70810
Leake Avenue, BR, LA 70810
Mariner Drive, BR, LA 70810
Mavis Drive, BR, LA 70810
Mays Drive, BR, LA 70810
Meadow Creek Ave., BR, LA 70810
Ned Avenue, BR, LA 70810
Nicholson Drive, BR, LA 70810
Nicholson Lake Drive, BR, LA 70810
Northlake Drive, BR, LA 70810
Old Hermitage Pkwy, BR, LA 70810
Old Hickory Drive, BR, LA 70810
Parkway Drive, BR, LA 70810
Pascagoula Drive, BR, LA 70810
River Road, BR, LA 70810
Romona Avenue, BR, LA 70810
Rose Garden Drive, BR, LA 70810
Rush Avenue, BR, LA 70810
Skysail Avenue, BR, LA 70810
2

Southbank Drive, BR, LA 70810
South Lake Drive, BR, LA 70810
Stonebridge Drive, BR, LA 70810

Tea Rose Lane, BR, LA 70810
Tide Drive, BR, LA 70810
Winding Lake Avenue, BR, LA 70810

For each such claim, provide the following information:
(a) The first and last initials of the policy owner/insured;
(b) The Date of Loss;
(c) The amount, if any, tendered by State Farm;
(d) Whether the insured requested an appraisal of the damage that was the subject of
the claim; and
(e) Whether State Farm appointed an appraiser in response to the insured’s request.
Response to Interrogatory No. 5:
State Farm objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous with
respect to the use of the terms “any and all claims”.
State Farm further objects on the grounds that this request is overly broad in time, scope
(types of claim or insurance coverage) and geographic area, it is potentially unduly
burdensome and because it is not reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to
the issues involved in this lawsuit. State Farm further objects to this request on the
grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the claims or defenses of a
party nor proportional to the needs of the case. It seeks confidential business information
and invades the privacy rights of policyholders who are not parties to this lawsuit. The
documents sought may also be protected by the attorney-client privilege and work
product doctrine. The existence of other claims and/or what may or may not have
occurred with respect to another claim will neither prove nor disprove any wrongdoing
occurred in this case, as each claim is handled on its own individual merits.
Finally, any such matters outside of [the] state of Louisiana,2 and/or unrelated to the
event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm claimed to have been
sustained by the plaintiff herein with regard to their claim under the subject policy, is
irrelevant and the question is not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant facts. See:
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003).
RFP No. 5:
Please produce any and all State Farm policies, procedures and/or guidelines provided to
claims adjustors and/or home inspectors during the years of 2020 to present date.
Response to RFP No. 5:
State Farm objects to this request on the grounds that it is overly broad in time (not
limited by the period of time when this claim was handled), scope (types of claims and
insurance coverage) and geographic area (not limited to Louisiana) and because it is not
reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to the issues involved in this lawsuit,
as State Farm’s procedures are intended to provide guidance but each claim is handled on
its own merits. State Farm further objects to this request on the grounds that it seeks
information that is neither relevant to the claims or defenses of a party nor proportional to

2

Plaintiff seeks no “information on matters outside the State of Louisiana.” (R. Doc. 14 at 10).

3

the needs of the case. Finally, State Farm objects in that this request may cover materials
which are confidential, proprietary business information and/or trade secret.

RFP No. 6:
Please produce all documents related to the claims identified in your response to
Interrogatory No. 5 including but [not limited to] the following:
1. State Farm’s response to any appraisal demand made by the insured; and
2. All documents related to any and all inspections and/or assessments of roof
damage including determinations and estimates of loss.
Response to RFP No. 6:
State Farm objects to this request on the grounds that it is vague and ambiguous with
respect to the use of the terms “any appraisal demand” and “any and all inspections
and/or assessments.”
State Farm further objects on the grounds that this request is overly broad in time, scope
(types of claim or insurance coverage) and geographic area, it is potentially unduly
burdensome and because it is not reasonably tailored to include only matters relevant to
the issues involved in this lawsuit. State Farm further objects to this request on the
grounds that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the claims or defenses of a
party nor proportional to the needs of the case. It seeks confidential business information
and invades the privacy rights of policyholders who are not parties to this lawsuit. The
documents sought may also be protected by the attorney-client privilege and work
product doctrine. The existence of other claims and/or what may or may not have
occurred with respect to another claim will neither prove nor disprove any wrongdoing
occurred in this case, as each claim is handled on its own individual merits.
Finally, any such matters outside of [the] state of Louisiana,3 and/or unrelated to the
event that is the subject of this lawsuit, have no nexus to the harm claimed to have been
sustained by the plaintiff herein with regard to their claim under the subject policy, is
irrelevant and the question is not reasonably calculated to lead to relevant facts. See:
State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (2003). (R. Doc. 13-2).
II.

Law and Analysis
A.

Legal Standards

“Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties
may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or
defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at

3

Plaintiff seeks no “information on matters outside the State of Louisiana.” (R. Doc. 14 at 10).

4

stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information,
the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the
burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this
scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b).
The court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines that: “(i) the discovery
sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source that
is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had
ample opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in the action; or (iii) the proposed
discovery is outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C).
Under Fed. Rules Civ. P. “33 and 34, a party upon whom interrogatories and [RFPs] have
been served shall serve a copy of the answers, and objections if any, to such discovery requests
within thirty days after service of the requests.” Shelton v. Landstar Ranger, Inc., No. CV 22337-BAJ-SDJ, 2023 WL 1425321, at *1 (M.D. La. Jan. 31, 2023) (citation omitted). “An
objection must state whether any responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of that
objection.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(C). If a party fails to timely respond to discovery requests
made after the Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 conference and pursuant to Fed. Rules Civ. P. 33 and 34, the
party seeking discovery “may move to compel responses and for appropriate sanctions under
[Fed. R. Civ. P.] 37.” Shelton, 2023 WL 1425321, at *1. An “evasive or incomplete . . . response
must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4).
When parties move to compel responses, their motions “must include a certification that
[they,] in good faith[,] conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make
disclosure or discovery[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a). “[I]f a motion to compel . . . is granted, the
court must, after affording an opportunity to be heard, require the party whose conduct

5

necessitated the motion to pay . . . the moving party’s reasonable expenses . . . unless the court
finds that the motion was filed without the movant first making a good faith effort to obtain the
discovery without court action; that the party’s nondisclosure . . . was substantially justified; or
that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.” Shelton, 2023 WL 1425321, at *2.
B.

Analysis
i.

Rule 37 Conference

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (“Rule 37”) requires that a motion to compel “include a certification
that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party
failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Fed. R. Civ.
P. 37(a)(1). The instant Motion is accompanied by a form Rule 37 Certification stating Plaintiff’s
counsel “conferred in good faith by telephone or in person with counsel for [D]efendant . . . in an
effort to obtain, without court action, the disclosure or discovery sought in the Motion[.]” (R.
Doc. 13-3). While the memorandum in support specifies that Plaintiff’s “counsel conferred by
telephone conference with counsel for [Defendant], confirming that any efforts by [Plaintiff] to
narrow or further tailor the discovery requests that are the subject of this [M]otion would not
change [Defendant]’s position on its objections[,]” Plaintiff fails to describe when this occurred.
(R. Doc. 14 at 1). Only Defendant’s opposition reveals this: “On February 15, 2024, the parties
held a telephone conference in which . . . the dispute could not be resolved.” (R. Doc. 15 at 2).
“Rule 37 mandates that a necessary component to a facially valid motion to compel is an
actual certification, which ‘must accurately and specifically convey to the court who, where,
how, and when the respective parties attempted to personally resolve the discovery dispute.’”
Persley v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No. 5:19-CV-01685, 2021 WL 1095323, at *2 (W.D.
La. Feb. 16, 2021) (citations omitted). Thus, a Rule 37 certification, or language in a motion to

6

compel, “should include the names of the parties who conferred or attempted to confer, the
manner by which they communicated, the dispute at issue, as well as the dates, times, and results
of their discussions, if any.” Id.
Fortunately for Plaintiff, the record shows that a Rule 37 conference occurred. (R. Doc.
15 at 2). Thus, despite Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the certification requirements of Rule
37, “the Court will not deny the Motion to Compel in its entirety in light of this failure.” Walker
LP v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyds, London, No. CV 22-485-BAJ-RLB, 2023 WL 6134767, at
*5 (M.D. La. Sept. 19, 2023) (citing Lauter v. SZR Second Baton Rouge Assisted Living, LLC,
No.20-813, 2021 WL 2006297, at *1 (M.D. La. May 19, 2021)). This Court will only consider
Plaintiff’s failure when apportioning costs. Id.
ii.

Interrogatory No. 5 and Request for Production No. 6

Defendant argues the information sought by Interrogatory No. 5 is irrelevant, unduly
burdensome, and disproportional to the needs of the case. (R. Doc. 15). Plaintiff argues
Interrogatory No. 5 is not overly broad in time or scope, is adequately limited to a specific
geographical territory, and is reasonably tailored to uncover whether Defendant “implemented a
pattern or policy of blanket denials of claims in the market” where the Property is located. (R.
Doc. 14 at 7, 8). Plaintiff explains that “a survey of the claims [Defendant] has adjusted during
th[e] limited time period in th[e] limited geographic territory is expected to be indicative of a
pattern and thus quite relevant to whether [Plaintiff]’s claim was adjusted in bad faith[.]” (R.
Doc. 14 at 10). She argues that any confidentiality concerns may be “addressed with a protective
order[,]” and that there are no privacy concerns as the policy holders’ addresses, names, and
policy numbers are not being requested. (R. Doc. 14 at 9). Regarding Defendant’s relevance

7

objection, Plaintiff cites no cases4 explaining the relevance of other insurance claim files to her
claim that Defendant “[a]rbitrarily and erroneously den[ied] the full extent of hail damages[.]”
(R. Docs. 1-1 at 2; 14).
In Est. of Christman v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., a case which came before this Court, an
estate’s executor brought a bad faith action against an insurer for failing to find any damage to
the deceased’s roof after a hailstorm. No. CV 20-739-BAJ-RLB, 2021 WL 2325330, at *1 (M.D.
La. June 7, 2021). He alleged that had the damage been properly assessed, the home would not
have been as severely damaged by Hurricane Laura. Id. Thus, the executor sought to compel
responses to an interrogatory “seeking information with respect to claims made on other parties
regarding the wind and hailstorm occurring on May 26, 2020[.]” Id., at *5. The plaintiff claimed
the information was “relevant to determine [the insurer’s] awareness of the storm, potential
systematic denials of coverage, or a singling out of Plaintiff's claim in light of the costs of
asbestos shingle removal.” Id., at *4. In assessing the motion to compel, this Court distinguished
the Katrina cases cited in footnote 3 and held the request was overbroad. Id. This Court also held
the information sought was irrelevant because “discovery of prior instances of claims of bad faith
is not relevant to whether an insurer acted in bad faith[.]” Id (citing Haydel v. State Farm Mutual
Auto. Ins. Co., No. 07-939, 2009 WL 10679319, at *7-8 (M.D. La. July 16, 2009)).

While this Court is aware that in the context of Hurricane Katrina insurance cases, courts have at times “ordered
the production of information and documents regarding other Katrina-related claims in limited geographical
areas[,]” the Katrina decisions are distinguishable. See Tomlinson v. Allstate Indem. Co., No. 06-617, 2007 WL
404698 (E.D. La. Feb. 1, 2007) (compelled insurer to produce list of lawsuits filed against it by Jefferson Parish
homeowners due to Hurricane Katrina but distinguishable as Plaintiff seeks claim files irrespective of whether a
lawsuit was filed); See also Dudenhefer v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., No. 06-4380, 2007 WL 1521018, at *3 (E.D.
La. May 23, 2007) (compelled insurer to produce list of claims and/or lawsuits made as a result of Hurricane Katrina
in St. Bernard Parish in which bad faith was alleged but distinguishable as Plaintiff seeks claim files irrespective of
whether bad faith was alleged); See also Parent v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Co., No. 06-2362, 2007 WL 1651990
(E.D. La. 2007) (compelled insurer to produce a list of insureds within one mile of plaintiff’s residence and claims
relating to Hurricane Katrina when it was alleged claimant and insurer disputed whether home suffered wind or
water damage but is distinguishable as Plaintiff’s claim concerns the payout amount, not the cause of the damage).
4

8

Likewise, in Weimar v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., a plaintiff sought “information and
documents, including entire claim[] files, related to any claims or lawsuits brought against [the
insurer] within the past ten years alleging misconduct, improper claims handling, bad faith, or
insurance code violations.” No. CV 17-584-BAJ-RLB, 2018 WL 6070344, at *2 (M.D. La. Nov.
20, 2018). As it did in Christman, this Court concluded the request was overbroad and irrelevant,
again because “discovery of prior instances of claims of bad faith is not relevant to whether an
insurer acted in bad faith in [an] instant matter.” Id (citation omitted). This Court held the same
in Lamar Advertising Co. v. Zurich Ins. Co., where a plaintiff sought “complaints, petitions,
demands, and allegations . . . made against [the insurer or the adjuster] that involve both (a)
allegations of bad faith claims handling and/or deceptive or unfair practices and (2) relate[] to
[the adjuster’s] involvement in an insurance claim.” No. CV 18-1060-JWD-RLB, 2020 WL
448243, at *9 (M.D. La. Jan. 28, 2020).
This Court thus finds Interrogatory No. 5 to be no less overbroad or irrelevant than the
interrogatories referenced above. The Interrogatory seeks information regarding insurance claims
for homes along fifty different streets over a period of more than two and a half months. It also
seeks “all documents related to the claims,” which would encompass the entire claim files.
In addition, in the instant matter, there is no dispute hail damage occurred; rather,
Plaintiff merely alleges Defendant’s inspector failed to find the roof needed replacing. (R. Doc.
1-1). This is a disagreement regarding the extent of damage and what is required to repair those
damages. It is not clear how claim files for Plaintiff’s somewhat distant neighbors could reveal
information regarding the damages of Plaintiff’s specific roof.
Regarding proportionality, in addition to the overbroad observations above, Plaintiff
seeks claims regarding roof damage, filed from March 15, 2022 to May 31, 2022, in an area

9

spanning approximately fifty streets. (R. Doc. 13-1). Defendant has no “way to electronically
search for claim files specific to roof damage” and “[i]t would require many hours . . . to attempt
to identify homes with State Farm policy holders who made a claim within the months
identified[.]” (R. Doc. 15 at 13). Moreover, Plaintiff’s request that Defendant note “[w]hether the
insured requested an appraisal of the damage that was the subject of the claim[,] and [w]hether
State Farm appointed an appraiser in response to the insured’s request[,]” would impose a burden
upon Defendant disproportional to the needs of the case because Plaintiff has not alleged that
Defendant denied appraisal. (R. Docs. 1-1; 13-1 at 6). Although the amount in dispute is not the
only consideration regarding proportionality, this case’s worth is not much greater than the
jurisdictional threshold, and these burdens are not proportional to the needs of the case,
especially considering the limited, if any, relevance of the information sought. Therefore, this
Court will not compel a response. (R. Doc. 1).
For the same reasons above, the Court also finds that a response to RFP No. 6 will not be
compelled. RFP No. 6 requests “all documents related to the claims identified in . . . response to
Interrogatory No. 5 including but [not limited to:] 1. [Defendant]’s response to any appraisal
demand made by the insured; and 2. All documents related to any and all inspections and/or
assessment of roof damage including determinations and estimates of loss.” (R. Doc. 13-1 at 7).
This is considerably overbroad as “all documents related to the claims identified in . . . response
to Interrogatory No. 5” encompasses “the entire claim files found[.]” (R. Docs. 13-1 at 7; 15 at
13). It would take Defendant an unreasonable amount of time to obtain and redact each of its
claim files, and Plaintiff fails to explain why this is necessary. (R. Docs. 14 at 13; 15). Plaintiff
only argues that RFP No. 6 is not vague or ambiguous and that Defendant’s objections are
insufficient since they are almost identical to Defendant’s objections to Interrogatory No. 5. (R.

10

Doc. 14 at 13). Plaintiff offers no argument specific to RFP No. 6 for why entire claim files for
other cases are relevant. (R. Doc. 14 at 13). As Plaintiff fails to explain the relevance of the
information sought, this Court finds RFP No. 6 to be irrelevant, overbroad, and unduly
burdensome. (R. Doc. 14). We will not compel a response, especially as no response to
Interrogatory No. 5 is being compelled.
iii.

Request for Production No. 5

Plaintiff argues RFP No. 5 is not broad in time, scope, or geographic territory, and is
“tailored to determine the procedures, guidelines and policies pursuant to which [Defendant’s]
adjusters and inspectors . . . reviewed and adjusted [Plaintiff]’s claim.” (R. Doc. 14 at 11, 12).
Plaintiff also argues a protective order could address any concerns Defendant has regarding
confidential, proprietary business information. (R. Doc. 14 at 12). She is not, however, opposed
to “narrowing the time period” provided in RFP No. 5. (R. Doc. 14 at 11).
Defendant “objected to this request as overly broad, irrelevant, and not proportional to
the needs of this case and because it requires discovery of confidential, proprietary business
information and/or trade secrets.” (R. Doc. 15 at 14). Defendant also explains that it sent Plaintiff
“a proposed protective order[,]” and only asks that this Court “narrow [Defendant]’s response to
only those policies, procedures, and guidelines that are relevant to the claim and the date of loss .
. . and require a protective order be filed prior to any production.” (R. Doc. 15 at 14).
Through RFP No. 5, Plaintiff requests “any and all State Farm policies, procedures and/or
guidelines provided to claims adjustors and/or home inspectors [from] 2020 to [the] present[.]”
(R. Doc. 13-1 at 7). In Weimar, a plaintiff “requested the production of all ‘claims manuals,
directives, letters, and other forms of written or computerized communication’ directed to claims
adjusters that refer or relate to claims handling[ and] of claims handling procedures or guidelines

11

within the last five years regarding ‘unfair claims settlement practices, unfair claims handling
practices, standards to be met in adjusting or handling first party insurance claims, and/or
avoiding charges of bad faith.’” Weimar, No. 2018 WL 6070344, at *3. This court found the
requests were overly broad and compelled the production of only “documents that establish the
procedures for adjusting claims under commercial property policies similar to the one at issue . .
. that were in effect and available . . . at the time [plaintiff’s] claim was adjusted.” Id.
This holding was adopted by the court in Lamar when a plaintiff sought production “of
all training materials used . . . from 2014 to the present to train [the insurer’s] commercial
property insurance adjusters, claims handlers, consultants, and accountants.” Lamar, 2020 WL
448243, at *9. Holding the time frame was too broad, this Court limited it to the date of the
subject weather event and the months following. Id. Otherwise, this Court followed Weimar and
held the insurer must produce “any documents that establish the procedures for adjusting claims
under commercial property policies similar to the one at issue in this action that were in effect
and available to [the insurer’s] employees at the time [plaintiff’s] claim was adjusted[.]” Id
(citing Weimar, 2018 WL 6070344, at *3).
This Court has come again to the same conclusions as those provided in Weimer and
Lamar. RFP No. 5 is overbroad as written for two main reasons: (1) Plaintiff has requested
policies applicable for the last four years, while the subject incident occurred only in 2022, and
(2) Plaintiff has not limited her request to concern only procedures applicable to policies similar
to the Plaintiff’s. (R. Doc. 13-1 at 7). Following the example of Weimer and Lamar, this Court
compels Defendant to provide only its policies and procedures as described further below.

12

iv.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Plaintiff “prays for an award of attorney’s fees and costs[.]” (R. Doc. 14 at 14). Where a
motion is only partially granted, “the court may . . . apportion the reasonable expenses. . . in a
just manner.” Louisiana CNI, LLC v. Landmark Am. Ins. Co., No. CV 06-112-D-M2, 2006 WL
8435025, at *9 (M.D. La. Aug. 17, 2006), amended, No. CV 06-112-D-M2, 2006 WL 8435026
(M.D. La. Oct. 19, 2006) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(4) (emphasis added)). As this Court has
neither fully granted nor denied the Motion, and Plaintiff filed an inadequate Rule 37 conference
certificate, each party is to bear its own attorney’s fees and costs.
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses (R. Doc. 13)

is DENIED as to Interrogatory No. 5 and RFP No. 6, and GRANTED IN PART as to RFP No.
5, with each party to bear their own costs.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant is compelled to respond to RFP No. 5 as
modified below, in accordance with a protective order to be entered into between Plaintiff and
Defendant and to be filed with this Court within 14 days of this Order:
Request for Production 5:
Please produce any and all State Farm policies, procedures, and/or guidelines for claims
adjustors and/or home inspectors that (i) applied during the inspection of and claim
adjustment period for the Home, or (ii) established the procedures for adjusting claims of a
policy similar or identical to the Home’s policy.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on May 8, 2024.

S

RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13