VTT Management Inc v. Federal Insurance Company

Filing 82

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 69 defendant's motion to compel and for continuance, striking case the November 2018 trial docket and resetting on the December 2018 trial docket (as more fully set out). Signed by Honorable Vicki Miles-LaGrange on 10/16/2018. (ks)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
VTT MANAGEMENT INC.,
Plaintiff,
vs.
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CIV-17-767-M

ORDER
This case is scheduled for trial on the Court’s November 2018 trial docket.
Before the Court is defendant’s Motion to Compel and for Continuance, filed September
25, 2018. Plaintiff filed its response on October 3, 2018, and on October 8, 2018, defendant filed
its reply. Upon review of the parties’ submissions, the Court makes its determination.
I.

Background
Plaintiff originally filed this action on July 18, 2017, asserting breach of contract and

insurance bad faith claims against defendant, stemming from a dispute over whether earthquake
damage to plaintiff’s property should have been covered by defendant. A scheduling conference
was set for November 3, 2017, and the parties submitted their Joint Status Report and Discovery
Plan on October 24, 2017. The Court then entered the Scheduling Order on November 3, 2017.
At that time, this case was set on the Court’s November 2018 trial docket—where it currently
remains.
Defendant now moves to compel plaintiff to respond to certain requests for production and
interrogatories, asserting that plaintiff’s current responses are deficient. Defendant also moves for
a continuance of the trial date by 90 days—contending that it needs additional time to prepare for
trial considering plaintiff’s deficient discovery responses. Plaintiff responds that (1) defendant has

already received most of the documents it seeks from plaintiff, (2) plaintiff will be severely
prejudiced by any delay in the trial date1, and (3) defendant’s contentions regarding prejudice are
pretextual—defendant only seeks to delay the trial date and prejudice plaintiff.
II.

Discussion
a. Motion to Compel
Defendant asserts that plaintiff’s discovery responses are deficient. Specifically, defendant

points out numerous discovery responses where, in its view, plaintiff needs to follow up with more
information. In response, plaintiff does not assert any defenses for not responding to defendant’s
discovery requests, such as irrelevance or privilege. Rather, plaintiff contends that defendant is
already in possession of most of the documentation that defendant seeks. Plaintiff further contends
that some of the documentation defendant seeks does not exist, and that other documentation will
be produced as it is discovered by plaintiff.2 Regarding the responses to the interrogatories,
plaintiff contends that defendant has obtained these answers through the numerous depositions the
parties have conducted over the past month. In its reply, defendant does not dispute this, but asserts
that some revelations in these depositions has led to the need for further depositions and other
discovery.
Having reviewed the submissions of the parties, the Court finds that defendant’s motion to
compel should be granted. Specifically, the Court finds that plaintiff must—to the extent the
documentation exists and is within its possession—provide the requested documentation to

1

Specifically, plaintiff claims it is incurring substantial financial damages by the day, and that any
delay of the trial date would likely cause it to default on the loan on its building.
2
Plaintiff spends more time in its briefing arguing that defendant is not prejudiced by any
unproduced documents, rather than explaining why various documents have not been produced.
The issue of prejudice will be addressed in a separate section of the Order.
2

defendant.3 To the extent, however, that defendant seeks information already obtained through
recent depositions, plaintiff is not required to provide this information.
b. Continuance of Trial
In addition to its motion to compel, defendant seeks a continuance of 90 days to follow up
on any new information it may receive from plaintiff, and to conduct a series of new depositions,
in light of information it has recently discovered. Defendant contends that keeping this case on the
November trial docket will prejudice it in defending itself at trial because it will not have sufficient
time to prepare for trial—particularly given that it is still receiving documents from plaintiff.
Plaintiff responds that defendant has not been prejudiced by any of its discovery deficiencies, and
that defendant merely wants to take advantage of plaintiff’s precarious financial situation and delay
the trial date.
Having reviewed the submissions of both parties, the Court finds that defendant’s request
for a continuance of trial should be granted in part. Specifically, the Court finds that defendant
should be granted 30 days—rather than the full requested 90 days—to adequately conduct the
additional discovery it believes is necessary to prepare its case for trial. The Court finds that a 30day continuance strikes an appropriate balance considering the competing contentions of prejudice
from both parties.
III.

Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART defendant’s Motion to

Compel and for Continuance [docket no. 69] as set forth above. To the extent that plaintiff has
been ordered to produce additional documents, plaintiff shall produce said documents to defendant

3

Specifically, plaintiff must supplement its responses to requests for production 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10,
16, 17, 18, 20-24 (inclusive), 26, 31, 35-43 (inclusive), 45, 47, 48, 49, 51, and 52.
3

within 21 days of this Order. Additionally, this matter is hereby STRICKEN from the November
2018 trial docket and RESET for the December 2018 trial docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 16th day of October, 2018.

4