Spriggs v. Phoenix Insurance Company, The
Filing
27
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; granting in part and denying in part 20 Motion to Compel (tjc, Dpty Clk)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
LARRY SPRIGGS,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
v.
THE PHOENIX INSURANCE
COMPANY d/b/a TRAVELERS
INSURANCE,
Defendant.
Case No. 13-CV-451-JED-FHM
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Dkt. 20] is before the court for decision. Defendant has
filed a response [Dkt. 21] and Plaintiff has filed a reply [Dkt. 22]. Plaintiff’s motion seeks
an order compelling Defendant to fully respond to Interrogatories 10 and 21, and Request
for Production 11 and 21.
Interrogatory No. 10:
Describe in detail Defendant’s procedure for training its claims
agents in handling Oklahoma UIM claims. If Defendant utilizes
instructional manuals or other education material in this
process, identify all such material, give a brief description of
each document and attach all documents hereto.
Answer to Interrogatory No. 10:
Objection, contains multiple subparts, vague and ambiguous
as to “procedure for training its claims agents”, not limited in
time and scope. Without waiving said objection, (12)
Stephanie Peel is licensed by the State of Oklahoma and must
complete continuing education requirements, as well as on the
job training.
1
The court finds that Defendant’s answer is not responsive. Defendant’s response
should describe what training Defendant gives its agents in handling Oklahoma UIM claims
and a description of any materials used in the training process. Defendant’s response may
be limited to the training current during the time Plaintiff’s claim was pending. Defendant
is not required to produce documents in response to this interrogatory.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted as to Interrogatory 10 as set forth herein.
Interrogatory No. 21:
Identify the number of policies you sold in the last five years
that provided UIM coverage applicable in the State of
Oklahoma.
Answer to Interrogatory No. 21:
(26) Objection, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead
to discovery of admissible evidence, unduly burdensome,
overbroad.
Plaintiff contends the information is relevant to Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.
The court is not persuaded that the number of policies is relevant to the determination of
punitive damages.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is denied as to Interrogatory 21.
Request for Production No. 11:
Please produce copies of the entire personnel files of each
claim-handler, adjuster, team leader, supervisor, manager,
claims officer, underwriter, actuary or other employee or agent
of Defendant Travelers who was responsible for determining,
taking action upon, or supervising decisions as to whether UIM
benefits, and/or bodily injury liability benefits should be paid,
and if so, what amount should be paid, to Plaintiff.
2
Response to Request No. 11:
Objection, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence, overbroad, unduly
burdensome, seeks documents containing sensitive personal
and confidential information relating to Defendant’s agents,
servants and/or employees, the provision of which would
impermissibly invade the privacy rights of such agents,
servants and/or employees; and further not restricted to the
time period of the claim at issue in this case.
During the parties’ discovery conference, Plaintiff limited the request to three of
Defendant’s employees who participated in handling Plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff further
limited the request to documents relating to the employees’ qualifications, training,
evaluations and write-ups, or other disciplinary information. Defendant primarily responds
that the information is not relevant and invades the privacy of non-parties.
The court finds the requested documents are relevant for discovery purposes.1 See
Waters v. Continental General Insurance Company, 2008 WL 2510039 (N.D. Okla.).
Although the employees are not parties, they participated in this claim as Defendant’s
agents.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted as to Request for Production 11 but is limited
to documents which pertain to the employees background, qualifications, training, and job
performance.
1
Finding the em ployees’ background, qualifications, training, and job perform ance are relevant
for discovery purposes strikes a balance between Plaintiff’s need for inform ation about the people who
participated in handling and deciding his claim and the need to protect the non-party em ployee from the
revelation of highly private m atters which m ay be docum ented in a personnel file, but which are not related
to their job perform ance pertaining to the instant case. If such private inform ation exists within the
categories of discoverable inform ation the court has identified, that specific inform ation m ay be addressed
in a m otion for protective order.
3
Request for Production No. 21:
Please produce all documents produced or obtained by you
within the last five (5) years, including but not limited to legal
opinions relied upon, which relate to whether, in Oklahoma, a
Defendant first party insurance carrier may withhold
undisputed portions of UIM benefits from an insured
policyholder because another UIM policy possibly provides
coverage to said insured under the claim presented to you.
Response to Request No. 21:
Objection, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence, overbroad, unduly
burdensome, as worded calls for information protected by the
attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, and
invades the privacy rights of individuals not a party to this
litigation.
Plaintiff contends this request calls for documents relied upon by Defendant’s
agents/employees handling Oklahoma UIM claims that relate to priority of payment
between UIM policies. But the request as written is much broader. While documents
relied upon by Defendant’s agents in handling Plaintiff’s claim would certainly be relevant,
the request is not limited to such documents.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is denied as to Request for Production 21.
Conclusion
Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel [Dkt. 20] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as
set forth herein.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of February, 2014.
4
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?