Cook v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Filing 35

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's 27 MOTION to Compel re Discovery. The Motion is Granted to the extent Defendant's objections to Interrogatories 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 are overruled and Defendant shall pro vide full and complete responses to these interrogatories. Defendant's objections to Request for Production Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 17 are overruled. The Court grants the parties a 90 day extension of the Discovery Plan and Scheduling Order as follows: Discovery due by 7/6/2015. Motions due by 8/5/2015. Proposed Joint Pretrial Order due by 9/4/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 2/26/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6
7
8
9
10

JILL COOK,

Case No. 2:14-cv-00524-RFB-PAL
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

11
12

The court conducted a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel State Farm’s Responses

13

to Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Request for Production of Documents

14

and Request for Sanctions (Dkt. #27) on February 26, 2015. John Keating appeared on behalf of

15

the Plaintiff, and James Harper appeared on behalf of the Defendant. The court has considered

16

the motion, Defendant’s Response (Dkt. #31), Plaintiff’s Reply (Dkt. #33) and the arguments of

17

counsel at the hearing.

18

The complaint in this case was filed in state court and removed (Dkt. #1) April 7, 2014.

19

It involves a single claim for breach of contract. Plaintiff was involved in an automobile

20

accident on December 19, 2012, on Greenway Road in Henderson, Nevada. The parties agree

21

that the driver of the other vehicle, Edward Hale, was liable for the accident. His insurance

22

carrier tendered his policy limits of $15,000. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff had uninsured

23

motorist (UIM) coverage with State Farm in the amount of $100,000. In August 2013, she made

24

a demand on State Farm for UIM benefits. At the time she made her demand, she forwarded

25

medical records and other information indicating that she had incurred approximately $16,000 in

26

medical specials. According to the Plaintiff, State Farm did not issue a determination letter for

27

almost seven months until sending a letter on February 13, 2014, denying UIM coverage, but

28

offering to settle with the Plaintiff for $157.00.
1

1

On May 20, 2014, the court granted the parties’ proposed discovery plan and scheduling

2

order which established a January 5, 2014, discovery cutoff. The parties subsequently requested

3

and received a 90-day extension of the discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines. See Dkt.

4

#22. The current discovery cutoff is April 6, 2015. Plaintiff timely filed a motion to amend the

5

complaint to add claims for bad faith and violations of Nevada’s Unfair Claims Practices Act.

6

After the motion to amend was filed, the case was reassigned to a new district judge after

7

briefing on the motion to amend was completed.

8

Plaintiff seeks to compel State Farm to respond to written discovery served June 11,

9

2014. State Farm provided some discovery responses, but objected to discovery requests which

10

it claims are irrelevant to Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim. Defense counsel recognized that

11

the motion to amend would almost inevitably be granted, and therefore recommended that his

12

client would provide substantive responses.

13

premature because it did not want to set a precedent to enable the Plaintiff’s bar to obtain

14

discovery potentially relevant to bad faith and Unfair Claims Practices Act in the absence of a

15

complaint asserting these claims.

However, State Farm resisted discovery as

16

Having reviewed and considered the moving and responsive papers, including the motion

17

to amend and State Farm’s response, the court will compel State Farm to provide responses to

18

the majority of the requests in dispute. Leave to amend a complaint is liberally allowed. The

19

motion to amend the complaint was timely filed. The parties have requested and received an

20

extension of the discovery plan and scheduling order deadlines. Defense counsel took the

21

Plaintiff’s deposition and asked questions directed to her bad faith claims and delaying discovery

22

would exalt form over substance as defense counsel acknowledges the district judge will almost

23

certainly grant the motion to amend the complaint.

24

The court finds that the majority of Plaintiff’s discovery requests in dispute in this case

25

are relevant and discoverable within the meaning of Rule 26(b)(1). The court will therefore

26

compel State Farm to provide full and complete answers to the interrogatories in dispute in the

27

motion, and compel State Farm to provide full and complete responses to some, but not all of

28

Plaintiff’s requests for production of documents. State Farm’s objections to the interrogatories
2

1

are overruled. Although State Farm did not serve a privileged document log for documents

2

withheld on the basis of privilege, the court will allow State Farm to serve a privileged document

3

log and withhold documents on the basis of privilege to the requests for production of documents

4

compelled in this order. The privileged document log shall fully comply with the requirements

5

of Rule 26(b)(5).

6

The court will not order monetary or other sanctions finding that State Farm’s position

7

was substantially justified in that the parties had a genuine dispute on a matter of which

8

reasonable people could differ as to the appropriate outcome. See, Pierce v. Underwood, 487

9

U.S. 522, 565 (1988).

10

IT IS ORDERED that:

11

1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

12

2. The Motion is GRANTED to the extent Defendant’s objections to Interrogatories 2,

13

4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 are overruled and Defendant shall provide full and complete

14

responses to these interrogatories.

15

3. Defendant’s objections to Request for Production Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12 and 17 are

16

overruled. However, as the court has found State Farm’s resistance to this discovery

17

was substantially justified, the court will not find waiver of the attorney-client or

18

work-product privilege.

19

requests for production of documents, but may withhold or privileged documents or

20

redact portions of documents containing privileged communications. Defendants

21

shall serve a privileged document log which fully complies with the requirements of

22

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5) for any responsive documents withheld from production or

23

redacted on the basis of privilege.

24
25
26
27
28

Defendant shall fully and completely respond to these

4. Defendant shall have until March 19, 2015, to supplement its discovery responses
consistent with this order.
5. The court will grant the parties a 90-day extension of the discovery plan and
scheduling order deadlines as follows:
a. Last date to complete discovery: July 6, 2015.
3

1

b. Last date to amend pleadings and add parties: April 7, 2015.

2

c. Las date to file interim status report: May 7, 2015.

3

d. Last date to disclose experts pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2): May 7,

4

2015.

5

e. Last date to disclose rebuttal experts: June 8, 2015.

6

f. Last date to file dispositive motions: August 5, 2015.

7

g. Last date to file joint pretrial order: September 4, 2015.

In the event

8

dispositive motions are filed, the date for filing the joint pretrial order shall be

9

suspended until 30 days after a decision of the dispositive motions. The

10

disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3), and any objections thereto,

11

shall be included in the pretrial order.

12

h. Applications to extend any dates set by this discovery plan and scheduling

13

order shall, in addition to satisfying the requirements of LR 6-1, be supported

14

by a showing of good cause for the extension. All motions or stipulations to

15

extend discovery shall be received no later than 4:00 p.m., June 15, 2015, and

16

shall fully comply with the requirements of LR 26-4.

17

6. Absent compelling circumstances and a strong showing that the parties could not

18

complete discovery within the extended time allowed despite the exercise of due

19

diligence, no further extensions will be granted.

20

DATED this 26th day of February, 2015.

21
22
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
4