Smith et al v. ComputerTraining.com, Incorporated et al
Filing
210
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 182 Motion to Overrule Garnishee - Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen. (Ciesla, C)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANDREW SMITH, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs,
No. 10-11490
v.
District Judge Victoria A. Roberts
Magistrate Judge R. Steven Whalen
COMPUTERTRAINING.COM, INC.,
ET AL.,
Defendants.
/
OPINION AND ORDER
For the reasons discussed below, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Overrule Garnishee
Continental Casualty Company’s Objections to Subpoena for Production of Documents
and to Compel Production Thereof [Doc. #182] is GRANTED, under the terms set forth
below.
I.
BACKGROUND
This case originated as a class action seeking damages on behalf of Plaintiffs who
enrolled in computer training programs offered by the Defendants. The complaint alleged
that after collecting “millions of dollars in tuition from Plaintiffs,” the Defendant schools
abruptly closed in December of 2009, leaving the Plaintiffs high and dry. The Plaintiffs
brought claims of negligence (Count I), breach of fiduciary duty (Count II), negligent
misrepresentation (Count III), innocent misrepresentation (Count IV), promissory
estoppel (Count V), unjust enrichment/breach of quasi-contract (Count VI), equitable
estoppel (Count VII), breach of contract (Count VIII), fraud (Count IX), civil conspiracy
(Count X), and concert of action (Count XI). See Third Amended Class Action Complaint
-1-
[Doc. #53]. On April 15, 2011, the Clerk of the Court entered defaults as to Defendant
schools, and on November 22, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiffs motion for default
judgment, determining the total tuition portion of the judgment to be
$113,947,255.00,excluding interest [Doc. #154].
During the post-judgment proceedings, Plaintiffs learned that Continental Casualty
Company (“CCC”) provided a general liability policy to the ComputerTraining.com
Defendants. Plaintiffs then served writs of garnishment and document subpoenas on
CCC, which objected to the document requests.
In their subpoena, the Plaintiffs requested production of 26 categories of
documents, including policies, notices, correspondence, reports, and other material, all
related to the ComputerTraining.com Defendants and/or the present lawsuit, the
complaint, and notices of the lawsuit. The Plaintiffs also requested files on the
Defendants as to claims and matters other than this lawsuit. CCC’s objections included
general, boilerplate language based on attorney-client and work product privilege, as well
as claims of confidentiality. CCC did not, however, provide a privilege log.
CCC did, however, agree to produce the primary polices. However, its overriding
response as to material pertaining to this lawsuit was as follows: “CCC will affirmatively
state that its investigation is continuing but at this time it appears that this Subpoena, the
Writ for Garnishment and corresponding Verified Statement and Complaint in support
thereof were CCC’s first notice of this matter.”
In its response [Doc. #185], counsel for CCC cites the following correspondence
sent to Plaintiffs’ counsel in an attempt to resolve this motion:
“Regarding our conversation of December 18, 2013, please be advised that
Continental Casualty has no objection, and will produce, certified copies of
the polices at issue. As discussed, Continental Casualty’s first notice of the
underlying action came by way of service of the Writ of Garnishment.
-2-
Therefore, Continental Casualty does not have a claim file and there are no
documents responsive to your subpoena with regard to any claim files or
communications with reinsurers, etc.
“The only other documents relating, in any way, to the subject policies are
invoices regarding premium payments. While it seems that the invoices are
not germane to any fact at issue, Continental Casualty is willing to produce
those documents. Payment of premium is not being contested and is not an
issue in this case.
“In order to avoid what will clearly amount to a vigorously contested
coverage case, we propose that Continental Casualty produce a corporate
designee for deposition limited to the notice issue, only. In the event that an
issue arises as to whether or not Continental Casualty was placed on notice,
CNA will agree to produce the corporate designee for other matters in the
future. It seems, however, that the notice issue alone will be sufficient to
deny coverage and, that being the case, may afford both our respective
clients considerable time and expense with regard to this matter.”
At the Court’s direction, counsel for Plaintiffs and for CCC met at least twice, on
January 21, 2014 and February 10, 2014, to discuss resolution of this motion, and counsel
filed supplemental pleading following those meetings [Doc. #195, #197, #200].
On February 21, 2014, CCC filed a proposed order resolving the outstanding
discovery issues [Doc. #200, Exhibit A]. On February 24, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an
acquiescence in that order, “save for a few minor stylistic, non-substantive changes,” and
agreed to entry of that proposed order [Doc. #201]. However, Plaintiff detailed the
following unresolved issues: (1) the form of a protective order; (2) the necessity for a
CCC privilege log; and (3) the production of claims file materials for the Defendants’
claims not related to the present lawsuit.1
II.
LEGAL PRINCIPLES
It is well established that “the scope of discovery is within the sound discretion of
the trial court.” Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601, 604 (6th Cir. 1993); Chrysler Corp. v.
1
That order has been docketed separately.
-3-
Fedders Corp., 643 F.2d 1229, 1240 (6th Cir. 1981). In exercising its discretion, the court
should first consider Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1), which states, in pertinent part:
“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is
relevant to the claim or defense of any party...For good cause, the court may
order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the
action...All discovery is subject to the limitations imposed by Rule
26(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (iii).” (Emphasis added).
The same principles apply when discovery is sought from a non-party under Rule
45. “A subpoena issued under Rule 45 is ‘subject to the general relevancy standard
applicable to discovery under [Rule 26(b)(1) ].’” Vamplew v. Wayne State University Bd.
of Governors, 2013 WL 3188879, *2 (E.D.Mich. 2013)(Cohn, J.)(quoting Syposs v.
U.S.A., 181 F.R.D. 224, 226 (W.D.N.Y.1998)).
III.
A.
DISCUSSION
Protective Order
On January 21, 2011, this Court entered a general protective order governing
confidential material [Doc. #44]. CCC has proposed a more detailed confidentiality order.
See Doc. #203, Exhibit 1. One of CCC’s concerns appears to be a desire to include
language addressing the confidentiality of transcripts. Plaintiffs believe that the existing
protective order is sufficient.
The Court’s January 21, 2011 protective order is specifically directed at financial
information, personal identifying information, “or trade secrets or other confidential
information.” While phrased in general terms, it would clearly allow CCC to assert
confidentiality as to transcripts, deposition testimony, or other material that would be
deemed financial or trade secret information. The existing order is both comprehensive
and elegant in its simplicity, and I see no reason to substitute CCC’s more densely worded
alternative.
-4-
B.
Privilege Log
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A) requires the filing of a privilege log as follows:
“(5) Claiming Privilege or Protecting Trial-Preparation Materials.
(A) Information Withheld. When a party withholds information otherwise
discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged or subject to
protection as trial-preparation material, the party must:
(i) expressly make the claim; and
(ii) describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible
things not produced or disclosed--and do so in a manner that, without
revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties
to assess the claim.”
“A privilege log must contain the basis for withholding discovery of the document
and sufficient detail beyond conclusory allegations to demonstrate the fulfillment of the
legal requirements for application of the privilege.” Hi-Lex Controls Inc. v. Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of Michigan, 2013 WL 1303622, *3 (E.D.Mich. 2013)(Roberts, J.).
CCC must therefore provide a sufficiently detailed privilege log as to any
documents as to which it claims privilege.
C.
Defendants’ Files as to Other Matters
Plaintiffs seek documents in CCC’s possession relating to the
ComputerTraining.com Defendants, regardless of whether those documents involve the
present lawsuit or other claims or transactions. That request is fairly within the broad
scope of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26. “‘The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorize extremely broad
discovery.’” MedCity Rehabilitation Services, LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2013
WL 4029051, *2 (E.D.Mich.. 2013)(Drain, J.)(quoting Guinn v. Mount Carmel Health
Systems, 2010 WL 2927254, *3 (S.D.Ohio 2010). The Plaintiffs have a judgment against
the ComputerTraining.com Defendants in excess of $113,000,000. CCC insured those
-5-
Defendants, who may or may not be collectible themselves. While the requested
information as to claims or documents not directly involving this lawsuit may or may not
be directly relevant, it is at least likely to lead to the discovery of relevant and admissible
evidence, including the financial status of the Defendants. CCC’s objections as to this
material are overruled, and the requested documents shall be produced.
IV.
For these reasons and under these terms, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Overrule Garnishee
Continental Casualty Company’s Objections to Subpoena for Production of Documents
and to Compel Production Thereof [Doc. #182] is GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/R. Steven Whalen
R. STEVEN WHALEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: August 27, 2014
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of record
on August 27, 2014, electronically and/or by U.S. mail.
s/Carolyn M. Ciesla
Case Manager to the
Honorable R. Steven Whalen
-6-
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?