Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland et al v. Sheehan Family, LLC et al

Filing 120

OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy ; denying 80 Motion to Compel (tjc, Dpty Clk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT COMPANY
OF MARYLAND and ZURICH
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiffs,
vs.

Case No. 16-CV-270-GKF-FHM

SHEEHAN FAMILY, LLC, et al.,
Defendants.
vs.
GEORGE THOMPSON, et al.,
Third-Party Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
The Reiss Defendants’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents From Plaintiffs,
[Dkt. 80], is before the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for decision. Plaintiffs
have filed a response brief. [Dkt. 107]. The time for filing a reply brief has expired and no
reply brief was filed. The matter is ripe for decision.
The Reiss Defendants assert that three categories of documents were identified
during the deposition of David McVicker: hand written notes taken during telephone
conversations; an original ink-signed copy of a general indemnity agreement bearing the
signatures of Robert Reiss or Rebecca Reiss; and a broker agreement between Plaintiff
Zurich American Insurance Company and Third-Party Defendant Alliant Insurance Services
Inc. They assert that these documents are directly relevant to the case and that Plaintiffs
should be compelled to produce the documents. The Reiss Defendants contend that the
documents are responsive to their Request for Production of Documents Nos. 2 and 4.

Plaintiffs assert that none of the documents that are the subject of this motion are
responsive to the Requests for Production of Documents. The court agrees.
Request for Production No. 2 asks for:
All written and electronic communications by and between
Plaintiff and Sheehan Pipe Line Construction Company related
to the underwriting process for the bonds issued by Zurich
and/or the General Indemnity Agreement (“GIA”) executed
January 30, 2015, and/or the proposed Rider to the GIA.
[Dkt. 107-1, p. 4]. Request for Production No. 4 requests:
All written and electronic communications by and between
Plaintiff and George Thompson related to the underwriting
process for the bonds issued by Zurich and or the General
Indemnity Agreement executed January 30, 2015, or the
proposed Rider.
[Dkt. 107-1, p. 5]. The Reiss Defendants asked for production of communications and
their discovery request defined what they meant by communications: “Communicate” and
“Communication” shall mean every manner or means of disclosure or transfer or exchange
of information whether orally, by document or otherwise.”

[Dkt. 107-1, p. 3].

The

documents the Reiss Defendants now seek are not communications and thus are not
responsive to the discovery requests. The Plaintiffs will not be ordered to produce
documents that are not responsive to the discovery requests.1
The Reiss Defendants’ Motion to Compel Production of Documents From Plaintiffs,
[Dkt. 80], is DENIED.
SO ORDERED this 8th day of March, 2018.

1

The Reiss Defendants’ letter to Plaintiffs requesting the subject documents referred to Request
for Production Nos 2 and 5, whereas the instant motion refers to Nos 2 and 4. The court notes that
Request No. 5 also requests “communications.” [Dkt. 107-1, p. 5].

2