Clifford et al v. Church Mutual Insurance Company
Filing
55
OPINION AND ORDER denying 50 Motion Motion for Informal Discovery Telephone Conference With Magistrate Judge King. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 7/30/2014. (pes1)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
JACQUIN CLIFFORD, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
Civil Action 2:13-cv-853
Judge Watson
Magistrate Judge King
CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that insurance policies
issued by defendant cover an injury or loss caused by defendant’s
alleged insured, Lonnie J. Aleshire, Jr., as reflected in a money
judgment obtain by plaintiffs against Mr. Aleshire.
This matter is
before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Informal Discovery
Telephone Conference With Magistrate Judge King, ECF 50 (“Plaintiffs’
Motion”).
Plaintiffs represent that the parties have reached impasse
regarding defendant’s responses to plaintiffs’ third request for
production of documents; plaintiffs believe that “a conference with
this Court would hopefully clarify the responsibilities of the
parties.”
Id. at 2-3 (citing Declaration of Chelsea L. Berger,
attached thereto).
Although defendant has not responded to
Plaintiffs’ Motion, (the deadline for responding has not yet passed),
plaintiffs attach correspondence from defense counsel indicating that
defendant does not believe that a dispute exists and disagree that a
1
conference with the Court is warranted.
Id. at 2 (citing Exhibit 4,
attached thereto).
By way of background, plaintiffs served their third request for
production of documents on June 2, 2014.
Id. at 2 (citing ECF 46-2,
Plaintiffs’ Third Request for Production of Documents to Defendant
Church Mutual Insurance Company).
In a response dated June 23, 2014,
defendant characterized that document request No. 661 as “hopeless,”
“overbroad and vague” and “impossible to answer.”
Exhibits 2, 3 and 4, attached thereto).
Id. at 2-3 (citing
Plaintiffs observed that this
response “did not indicate that there were no documents in existence
that were responsive to Request 66.”
attached thereto).
Id. at 3 (citing Exhibit 3,
After plaintiffs advised defendant of perceived
deficiencies in defendant’s responses, defendant served “a whole new
version of responses to Plaintiff’s Third Request, indicat[ing] that
the wrong version had allegedly been sent prior.”
Id. at 2.
Defendant’s revised response to document request No. 66 objects to the
request as, inter alia, “hopelessly vague and ambiguous” and
“hopelessly overbroad,” but goes on to represent that “Church Mutual
does not have any documents that address or purport to address any
ambiguous language in the insurance policies issued by Church Mutual
to Licking Baptist Church.”
ECF 48, pp. 7-8.
See also Exhibit 4,
PAGEID #:927 attached to Plaintiff’s Motion (email from defense
counsel dated July 24, 2014, stating, inter alia, that “Church Mutual
does not have documents responsive to Request 66.”).
1
Document request no. 66 seeks “copies of any and all notes, correspondence,
memoranda, or other documents pertaining to any area(s) of ambiguity listed
above in the [insurance] policies from 2000 to 2007.” ECF 48, p. 7.
2
Plaintiff believes that there is “a high likelihood” that
defendant either did not diligently search for documents responsive to
document request No. 66 or is withholding responsive documents because
(1) defendant’s earlier objected to that document request No. 66 as
“impossible to answer”; and (2) defendant’s “original” response “did
not indicate that there were no documents in existence that were
responsive to Request 66.”
This Court disagrees.
Plaintiff’s Motion, p. 3.
Defense counsel has made the professional
representation that no documents responsive to document request No. 66
exist.
See ECF 48; Exhibit 4, attached to Plaintiffs’ Motion.
Plaintiffs have offered no reason for the Court to conclude that
defendant’s counsel have failed to meet their obligations under Bratka
v. Anheuser-Busch Co., 164 F.R.D. 448 (S.D. Ohio 1995).
Under these
circumstances, a discovery conference to “clarify the responsibilities
of the parties” as they relate to plaintiffs’ document request No. 66
is unwarranted.
WHEREUPON, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Informal Discovery Telephone
Conference With Magistrate Judge King, ECF 50, is DENIED.
July 30, 2014
s/Norah McCann King
Norah McCann King
United States Magistrate Judge
3
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?