State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Langenhahn et al
Filing
41
OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; granting 30 Motion to Quash; granting 30 Motion to Expedite Ruling; granting 29 Motion for Protective Order (tjc, Dpty Clk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No. 16-CV-28-JED-FHM
KURT LANGENHAHN and BECCO
CONTRACTORS, INC.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order/Motion to Quash, [Dkt. 29], is
before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for decision. The matter has been
fully briefed, [Dkt. 29, 35, 39, 40], and is ripe for decision.
Plaintiff seeks a protective order relating to the Rule 30(b)(6) notice to take
deposition and Rule 34(a) document requests by Defendant Langenhahn in this declaratory
judgment action. The issues in this case relate to whether damages Defendant Becco
seeks to recover from Langenhahn are covered by Langenhahn’s homeowner’s policy
issued by State Farm. The damages Becco seeks to recover from Langenhahn consist of
labor and material costs relating to a construction project. It is State Farm’s position that
those damages are economic damages, not damages for “bodily injury” or “property
damage” as those terms are defined in the homeowner’s policy and therefore the damages
are not covered by the policy.
Langenhahn seeks testimony of a State Farm corporate designee on several topics,
including “all facets and scope and parameters of the general liability insurance clause and
all of its related damages clause(s), including all alleged exclusions.” [Dkt. 29-7].
Langenhahn also seeks the production of, and a person to testify concerning, any and all
training materials used to teach and instruct adjusters, including case studies, “go bys,”
videos, powerpoint presentations, slide shows, films, flash cards, seminar materials, poster
boards, checklists, electronic materials, policies, procedures, bulletins, etc. State Farm
seeks a protective order contending the topics set forth and the documents requested are
not relevant and do not meet the requirement of proportionality to the claims and defenses
in the case as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1).1 Langenhahn’s response brief and
supplemental brief completely fail to address the issues of relevancy and proportionality of
the discovery sought.
Langenhahn has not explained the relevancy or how the discovery serves the needs
of the case, and the wide ranging and broad discovery sought by Langenhahn does not,
on its face, appear to be relevant to the issues presented or proportional to the needs of
the case. Therefore, Plaintiff State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order/Motion to Quash,
[Dkt. 29], is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED this 20th day of October, 2016.
1
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(1) provides in relevant part: “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case.
..“
2
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?