Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) SE v.D&B Marine, LLC, et al

Filing 75

ORDER Denying 64 Defendant's Motion to Compel. Signed by Senior Judge Graham Mullen on 7/26/2018. (jaw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
NO. 3:16-cv-280-GCM

GREAT LAKES REINSURANCE
(UK) SE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
D&B MARINE, LLC,
Defendant.

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 64)
filed on May 4, 2018. Plaintiff responded on June 1, 2018, and Defendant filed a reply on June
18, 2018. Accordingly, this matter is now ripe for disposition.
On March 6, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second
Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed its Second Amended Complaint on March 7, 2018, and
Defendant served its Second Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on
March 27, 2018 in light of the new allegations in the Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff
objected to all eight of the new interrogatories, which requested that Plaintiff identify “each and
every” application, lawsuit or declaratory judgment action taken, claim paid, and claim denied
related to the “violation/suspension” and “loss history” disclosures required on Plaintiff’s
insurance application.
Defendant now moves to compel production of these disclosures, arguing that they are
relevant to the “materiality” element of Plaintiff’s misrepresentation of material fact claim.
Defendant also seeks sanctions against Plaintiff for failing to respond to these requests. Plaintiff

argues that the language of “each and every” is overly broad and imposes an undue burden on
Plaintiff to sift through approximately 150,000 old policies of maritime insurance. Plaintiff
further argues that disclosure would violate UK and EU data privacy laws and are unnecessary
because Defendant has access to the relevant information through other sources, namely PACER
searches of similar cases involving Plaintiff.
Without addressing the merits of Plaintiff’s data privacy arguments, the Court finds that
the requested disclosures are overbroad and unduly burdensome, and the Court must deny
Defendant’s Motion to Compel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The Court also
denies at this time Defendant’s alternative request contained in its reply brief, seeking to compel
Plaintiff to produce the files for 122 identified cases that have been or are currently in litigation,
as overbroad and unduly burdensome.
The Court understands Defendant’s desire to obtain evidence relating to Plaintiff’s
practices as well as their written policies, and therefore encourages the parties to negotiate with
respect to a more narrowly tailored request for production of documents in Plaintiff’s insurance
claims involving similar issues.
Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant’s Motion to
Compel (Doc. No. 64).
SO ORDERED.
Signed: July 26, 2018