Drew Hardware LLC v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company et al

Filing 31

ORDER granting 22 Motion to Compel, as more fully set out. Signed by Honorable David L. Russell on 3/18/15. (jw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DREW HARDWARE, L.L.C.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
(1) HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE, )
CO., and
)
(2) SENTINEL INSURANCE
)
COMPANY, LTD.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. CIV-14-845-R

ORDER
Before the Court is Drew Hardware’s First Motion to Compel. Doc. No. 22. This
action stems from Defendants’ denial of insurance coverage for roof damage allegedly
done to Plaintiff’s commercial building as a result of a hail storm in April 2013 in Harrah,
Oklahoma. Pet. ¶¶ 2, 6-8, 16. Plaintiff brought claims against Defendants for breach of
contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violation of the Oklahoma
Consumer Protection Act, and agent neglect. Id. at 8-12. Plaintiff filed a motion to
compel disclosure of documents concerning Alicia Buie, a former adjuster for Hartford
Fire Insurance Co. who handled Plaintiff’s hail claim. Doc. No. 22, at 1, 3. Defendants
have since provided Plaintiff a majority of the information requested, except for copies of
Ms. Buie’s performance reviews and documentation concerning her discipline and
termination. Doc. No. 27, at 1. Plaintiff seeks documents covering the time period from
January 1, 2011 through Ms. Buie’s termination in 2013. Doc. No. 22, Ex. 3, at 2
(Request for Production No. 29). Defendants contend this information is confidential and
irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claims in this case. Doc. No. 26, at 3.

Relevance
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), a party “may obtain discovery
regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense,” and
“[r]elevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” According to
Plaintiff, Ms. Buie’s supervisor testified at his deposition that she was disciplined and
ultimately terminated for poor work performance. Doc. No. 22, at 3. Defendants point out
that her supervisor also testified that Ms. Buie’s termination did not result from her
handling of Plaintiff’s hail claim, and her performance reviews do not involve the
Plaintiff’s claim. Doc. No. 26, at 3. Plaintiff contends that the information requested is
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it will show
“her performance shortcomings as an adjuster[,] which may have predictably played a
role in her failure to reasonably investigate,” and it may also demonstrate “Hartford’s
furtherance of corporate financial goals and/or objectives at policyholder expense.” Doc.
No. 22, at 6.
The Court finds that the documents requested are reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence. Even if Ms. Buie’s performance reviews and
discipline documentation do not explicitly mention Plaintiff’s hail claim, these documents
likely outline Ms. Buie’s deficiencies in her position as a claims adjuster. This
information is relevant to Plaintiff’s claim of breach of the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing, in which Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to “reasonably

2

investigate, evaluate and thereafter pay the claim submitted by Drew Hardware.” Pet.
¶ 24.
Confidentiality
Defendants next argue that Ms. Buie’s personnel file is confidential, and thus not
subject to discovery. But they do not explain why the Court’s Protective Order [Doc. No.
14] is insufficient to protect this confidential information. This Order applies to all
confidential information produced in this litigation, including personnel files. Id. ¶¶ 1-2.
Moreover, Plaintiff’s request is limited to copies of Ms. Buie’s performance reviews and
discipline documentation from January 1, 2011 through her termination in 2013. Doc. No.
22, Ex. 3, at 2 (Request for Production No. 29). This narrow request, coupled with the
Protective Order, appropriately balances Plaintiff’s need for such documents and
Defendants’ concern over harmful disclosure of this information. See Regan-Touhy v.
Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641, 648-49 (10th Cir. 2008) (“[P]ersonnel files often contain
sensitive personal information … and it is not unreasonable to be cautious about ordering
their entire contents disclosed willy-nilly…. This is not to say personnel files are
categorically out-of-bounds. By way of example only, had Ms. Touhy issued a more
narrowly targeted request focused only on documents … that might indicate disciplinary
action against Ms. Whitlock after Ms. Touhy filed suit, we would face a very different
question.”). The undersigned rejects Defendants’ contention that these documents may be
withheld on the basis of confidentiality.

3

Conclusion
In accordance with the foregoing, Drew Hardware’s First Motion to Compel [Doc.
No. 22] is GRANTED. Defendants shall provide copies of Ms. Buie’s performance
reviews and discipline documentation from January 1, 2011 through her termination in
2013 to Plaintiff within seven (7) days from the date of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of March, 2015.

4