Travelers Casualty and Surety Company v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company et al

Filing 72

ORDER denying 55 Motion to Compel; granting 68 Motion for leave to disregard or for leave to file a sur-reply. If plaintiff intends to respond to this motion 71 , it must do so no later than May 18, 2012. The parties are ORDERED to report on the status of settlement discussions by 5/22/12. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 5/10/12. (rew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Civil Action 2:11-CV-63
Judge Sargus
Magistrate Judge King

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
Defendants Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and National
Casualty Company (collectively, “Nationwide”) have filed a motion to
compel.

Doc. No. 55.1

Nationwide represents that “three issues

remain” for the Court’s consideration, Doc. No. 56, p. 1, but does not
correlate the issues it raises with specific discovery requests.
Instead, Nationwide refers in passing to particular discovery
requests, Doc. No. 56, pp. 5 n.2, 6 n.3 & 4, but does not otherwise
incorporate these particular requests when discussing the merits of
its position.

For example, Nationwide does not identify which

discovery requests are impacted by arguments involving privilege, the
common interest doctrine, and the access to records clause.2
Similarly, while Nationwide seeks an order compelling supplemental
answers to ten (10) interrogatories requesting “basic information,”

1

The supporting memorandum appears as Doc. No. 56.

2
The Court is unable to review all of the discovery responses because
Nationwide provided only partial copies of these responses, omitting several
pages. See Exhibits 1 and 2, attached to Affidavit of Melissa M. Weldon, Doc.
No. 57.

Doc. No. 56, pp. 1, 5-6, 10, Nationwide does not specify what each
interrogatory seeks and why the Court should compel production as to
each interrogatory.

Instead, Nationwide generally describes five

types of information covered by these ten interrogatories, id. at 5,3
and asserts in conclusory fashion that “[a]s a matter of fundamental
fairness, Travelers should be required to disclose this basic
information.”

Id. at 10.

See also Nationwide’s Reply Memorandum in

Support of Motion to Compel, Doc. No. 66, p. 3 (“This basic
information about its [plaintiff’s] own claims must be provided, and
in light of its ongoing failure to do so, Travelers should be ordered
to answer these interrogatories.”).
Accordingly, based on the present record, Nationwide’s motion to
compel, Doc. No. 55, is DENIED without prejudice to renewal– in a
motion filed, if at all, no later than May 22, 2012 – on certain
conditions.

Specifically, if it chooses to file another motion to

compel, Nationwide must correlate the substance of its arguments with
particular discovery requests.

In doing so, Nationwide may, where

appropriate, incorporate by reference specific arguments raised in its
original motion to compel, Doc. No. 55.

However, Nationwide is

ADVISED that conclusory arguments raised in its original motion will
not be well-taken.
Plaintiff has filed a motion to disregard or for leave to file a
sur-reply, complaining that Nationwide raised for the first time in

3
It is not immediately apparent to the Court which specific
interrogatories match up to Nationwide’s generalized descriptions. Moreover,
it appears that at least two of these interrogatories, Nos. 19 and 20 relating
to witnesses, are not even referenced in Nationwide’s generalized description.
Stated differently, Nationwide provides no argument or basis for seeking an
order compelling these interrogatories.

2

Nationwide’s reply in support of the motion to compel a new discovery
demand and a new argument (the common interest doctrine) and submitted
new evidence.

Doc. No. 68.

Over Nationwide’s objection, Doc. No. 70,

plaintiff’s motion is well-taken.

The motion for leave to disregard

or for leave to file a sur-reply, Doc. No. 68, is GRANTED to the
extent that plaintiff will have the opportunity to respond to these
issues in the event Nationwide files a renewed motion to compel
consistent with this Order.
Nationwide has filed a motion to amend the scheduling order.
Doc. No. 71.

If plaintiff intends to respond to this motion, it must

do so no later than May 18, 2012.
Finally, the Court notes that the parties have scheduled a
mediation to be held on May 18, 2012.

The parties are ORDERED to

report on the status of settlement discussions, without divulging the
substances of those discussions, no later than May 22, 2012.

May 10, 2012
(Date)

s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge

3