Leventis v. Safeco Insurance Company of America

Filing 151

ORDER re 133 MOTION to Compel Discovery, directing that the motion to compel with respect to Request to Produce No. 22 is denied. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 12/17/2010. (bshr, )

Lev e nti s v. Safeco Insurance Company of America

Do c. 151

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA C O L U M B IA DIVISION L E I G H J. LEVENTIS and CHRISTOPHER L E V E N T IS ) ) ) P l a in tif f , ) ) vs. ) ) FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY) O F AMERICA, ) ) Defendant/Counterclaimant, ) ) vs. ) ) CHRISTOPHER LEVENTIS, CAROLINA ) C A R E PLAN, INC., MEDICAL MUTUAL ) O F OHIO, PITTS RADIOLOGY ) A S S O C IA T E S , P.A. , RICHLAND ) C O U N T Y EMS and PALMETTO HEALTH ) E M E R G E N C Y PHYSICIANS, ) ) C o u n t e rc la im Defendants. ) _______________________________________) F IR S T NATIONAL INSURANCE ) C O M P A N Y OF AMERICA, ) ) T h ird -P a rty Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) L E IG H J. LEVENTIS and PALMETTO ) H E A L T H RICHLAND, ) ) T h i rd - P a r ty Defendants. ) _______________________________________) C .A . NO.: 3:09-1561-JFA

ORDER

T h is matter comes before the Court on the defendant First National's motion to

Dockets.Justia.com

c o m p e l discovery filed on October 21, 2010. (ECF No. 133). The motion requested that the C o u rt compel the plaintiffs to provide more thorough answers to First National's Interro g ato ry Nos. 5-10 and 12 and Request for Production Nos. 18 and 22. The issues were f u lly briefed, and a hearing was held on December 15, 2010. Between the filing of the m o tio n and the hearing, the parties came to a mutual agreement regarding Interrogatory No. 1 2 and Request for Production No. 18, making the motion on those issues moot. Therefore, o ra l argument at the hearing focused on Interrogatory Nos. 5-10 and Request for Production N o . 22. The Court ruled orally on the interrogatories and took the issue of Request for P ro d u c tio n No. 22, which requested the fee agreement between the plaintiffs and their c o u n s e l, under advisement. The plaintiff has objected to the request, arguing that it is overly broad and not re le v a n t. At the plaintiff's deposition and again at the December 15, 2010 hearing, the p la in tif f 's counsel stated on the record that it will advance the costs of the case. The d e f en d a n t's counsel expressed concern that the fee agreement may include an incentive a rra n g e m e n t for the class representatives. The plaintiffs' counsel, James Griffin, stated that, a s an officer of the Court, the potential class representatives and counsel do not have a fee a g re e m e n t that includes an incentive arrangement. Having been assured of this fact, the C o u rt is not convinced that the plaintiffs should be required to hand over a copy of their fee a g re e m e n t to the defendant. Therefore, the motion to compel with respect to Request to Produce No. 22 is denied.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

D ec em b er 17, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

3