Williams et al v. Aspen Insurance UK Limited

Filing 42

ORDER denying 34 Motion to Compel. Signed by Jane M Virden on 12/14/2012. (sef)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION

ANGELA WILLIAMS and CLIFFORD
RANCIFER, d/b/a ROLLERWORLD

PLAINTIFFS

VS.

CAUSE NO. 4:11-CV-135-GHD-JMV

ASPEN INSURANCE UK LIMITED

DEFENDANT
ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Motion of the Plaintiffs, Angela Williams and
Clifford Rancifer, d/b/a Rollerworld, for an order compelling Defendant Aspen to provide
adequate compliance with Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures (#34). The court has examined the
Plaintiffs' motion and the initial disclosures at issue. The court has also considered Aspen’s
response and objections. Based on the record, the court finds that the disclosures provided by
Defendant Aspen are sufficient under the rules, and that Plaintiffs' motion is without merit.
Rule 26(a)(1)(ii), in connection with the initial disclosure of documents, states that the
disclosing party is to provide:
(ii) a copy – or a description by category and location – of all documents,
electronically stored information, and tangible things that the disclosing party has in
its possession, custody, or control and may use to support its claims or defenses,
unless the use would be solely for impeachment;
It appears to the Court that Aspen has provided a description by category and location of
all documents as required by the rule. Rule 26(a) is considered a “starting point” for the
discovery process; it does not take the place of the discovery process. United States v.
Merck-Medco Managed Care, LLC, 223 F.R.D. 330, 333 (E.D.Pa. 2004). FED.R.CIV.P. 26(a)

advisory committee note (1993) specifically states that the initial disclosure of documents “is
included as a substitute for the inquiries routinely made about the existence and location of
documents and other tangible things in the possession, custody, or control of the disclosing
party...[A]n itemized listing of each exhibit is not required …”.
Aspen listed seven categories of documents and two specific documents in compliance
with the Rule, thereby alerting counsel for Plaintiffs of the documents Aspen deems relevant to
its defenses. Furthermore, Aspen agreed to produce its claim file and underwriting file, as well
as the files of Aspen’s consultants involved in the investigation and analysis of the insurance
claim. Aspen produced the discoverable portions of its claim file and underwriting file to
Plaintiffs' counsel on November 21, 2012. Aspen also advised Plaintiffs' counsel that it would
produce the discoverable portions of the files of its forensic accountant, independent adjuster,
building damage consultant, and fire cause and origin engineering consultant during the week of
December 10.
Based on the foregoing facts and consideration of Rule 26(a)(1)(ii) as a starting point of
the discovery process, the court does not find the motion to be well taken or necessary.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the motion to compel is DENIED.
SO ORDERED, this the 13th day of December, 2012.

Jane M. Virden
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2