Taylor v. Allstate Insurance Company

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO INSPECT PLAINTIFF'S REAL PROPERTY (DOC. # 21 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 3/8/2012. (mdf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
SHARON TAYLOR,
:

Case No. 3:11-cv-457

:

District Judge Timothy S. Black
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman

Plaintiff,
-vsALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
:
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO INSPECT
PLAINTIFF’S REAL PROPERTY (DOC. 21)

This is a pro se insurance coverage case for which the Court recently held a scheduling
conference. At issue is “whether there is coverage for, and if so the value of, a property claim
arising from an alleged windstorm loss to Plaintiff’s real property that reportedly occurred on or
about April 27, 2011.” Doc. 21 at 3.
During the conference, Defendant’s counsel indicated that they would like to inspect
Plaintiff’s premises, and that such an inspection would aid them in, inter alia, analyzing Plaintiff’s
damages claim for purposes of settlement. Plaintiff advised the Court that she objected to any such
request, and would refuse to allow such an inspection to occur.
Following the conference, Defendant filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv) motion to inspect
Plaintiff’s property. See doc. 21 (motion “for inspection of real property”). Although, as noted
above, Plaintiff stated her objection to such an inspection during the scheduling conference, she did
not file a memorandum in opposition to the motion.
The motion is supported by good cause. First, Plaintiff has, to date, refused to permit an

inspection of her real property. Second, an inspection will allow Defendant and their representatives
to view the property in question, to better understand the claim at issue in this case, and also to aid
in a possible settlement of that claim. Finally, recognizing Plaintiff’s objection to such an inspection
-- as she repeatedly made clear during the scheduling conference -- the Court agrees with Defendant
that a Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 Notice of Inspection would be futile. See doc. 21 at 3.
The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s motion to inspect Plaintiff’s real property, and
ORDERS such an inspection promptly occur within the next thirty (30) days or less. The Court
ALSO ORDERS Defendant’s counsel and pro se Plaintiff to confer and agree upon a date and time
certain for such an inspection. If the parties cannot so agree, they shall jointly contact the Court at
[phone], and the Court will speak with the parties so that a date and time for the inspection
can be promptly scheduled.
Plaintiff is ADVISED that she must cooperate in the discovery process in this case. She is
FURTHER ADVISED that her failure to participate in discovery and allow the inspection at issue
may be cause for the Court to dismiss this case on the grounds that she has failed to comply with a
Court Order. Fed. R.Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(v).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 8, 2012

s/ Michael J. Newman
United States Magistrate Judge