Motsinger v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
Filing
106
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 98 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by The Honorable J Michelle Childs on 7/2/2013. (hcic) (Main Document 106 replaced on 7/2/2013 with corrected document) (hcic, ).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
Carlotta Motsinger,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )
Civil Action No.: 4:11-cv-01734-JMC
OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company’s (“Nationwide”)
Motion to Reconsider Order Granting In Part and Denying In Part Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel
Discovery [Dkt. No. 98]. The motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as set
forth herein.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
This matter arises out of a bitter dispute between Nationwide and Plaintiff Carlotta
Motsinger (“Plaintiff”) over Nationwide’s refusal thus far to pay claims under policies owned by
Plaintiff. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, because she has a common law marriage with
William Workman, the driver of the vehicle in the accident that precipitated these claims, she
should be entitled to “stack” insurance coverages under her Nationwide automobile policies.
Nationwide has made numerous attempts to determine whether Plaintiff and Workman were
common law spouses, including filing a declaratory judgment action in a South Carolina state
court, a South Carolina family court and now, in this court. Plaintiff has alleged that these
efforts amount to bad faith, breach of contract accompanied by a fraudulent act, and abuse of
process.
1
The instant motion concerns a discovery dispute that began with Nationwide’s original
objections to Plaintiff’s Interrogatories and Requests for Production and Plaintiff’s subsequently
filed Motion to Compel [Dkt. No. 18] in which Plaintiff asserted that Nationwide’s responses
were incomplete and insufficient. The Magistrate Judge previously assigned to this case held a
hearing on the discovery dispute and ordered Nationwide to provide supplemental responses
within ten (10) days. Plaintiff found the supplemental responses insufficient and incomplete and
filed a Second Motion to Compel [Dkt. No. 60]. This court dismissed the Second Motion to
Compel without prejudice on the grounds that the parties had failed to consult with each other to
resolve the matter after both parties had previously agreed to do so. After consultation, Plaintiff
timely filed her Second Amended Motion to Compel Discovery Responses [Dkt. No. 79].
Nationwide filed a Response In Opposition [Dkt. No. 80] in which it restated its opposition to the
discovery request generally, asserting that the requests were not relevant, overbroad and unduly
burdensome; reiterated its belief that there was no bad faith involved in the handling of
Plaintiff’s claim; and focused primarily on the aggressive tactics of Plaintiff’s counsel during this
litigation.1 The court issued an Order [Dkt. No. 94] granting in part and denying in part
Plaintiff’s Amended Motion to Compel in which it imposed some limitations on the scope of
Plaintiff’s discovery requests.
Nationwide has now asked the court to impose further limitations on Plaintiff’s requests
for production and interrogatories. Nationwide has supported its arguments that Plaintiff’s
1
Nationwide’s prior responses similarly asserted that Plaintiff’s requests were generally
unreasonable, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
See Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery Responses
[Dkt. No. 25] and Defendant’s Response in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Second Motion to Compel
Responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production [Dkt. No. 69]. However,
Nationwide’s responses did not specifically address Plaintiff’s arguments as to why such
production was warranted and did not provide sufficient information, as it has now done, as to
why those requests were unduly burdensome.
2
requests are overbroad and unduly burdensome with factual background, which is very helpful to
the court in setting the appropriate limits on the scope of discovery. The court now reconsiders
its prior ruling in relation to the specific objections made by Nationwide.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This action involves a motion to compel discovery. Rule 26 provides that “[p]arties may
obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or
defense. . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” FED. R. CIV. P 26(b).
Pursuant to rule 26(b)(2)(C), the court may limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise
allowed on a motion from a party if it finds, among other things that “the burden or expense of
the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the
amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action,
and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(2)(C). “The
power to reconsider or modify interlocutory rulings ‘is committed to the discretion of the district
court,’ and that discretion is not cabined by the ‘heightened standards for reconsideration’
governing final orders.” Saint Annes Dev. Co., Inc. v. Trabich, 443 F. App'x 829, 832 (4th Cir.
2011) (quoting American Canoe Assoc. v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505, 514–15 (4th Cir.
2003)).
DISCUSSION
With regard to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory Number 10 and Request for Production Number
23 seeking information regarding any other bad faith or fraud claims against Nationwide or its
subsidiaries whether pending or previously adjudicated in the previous five (5) years, the court is
convinced by the Affidavit of Peter Oesterling [Dkt. No. 100-1], Nationwide’s Associate Vice
3
President in its Discovery Management Unit, that compliance with Plaintiff’s request will be
overly burdensome relative to the relevancy of the information sought and that requiring the
requested production has the very real potential to delay trial.2 Therefore, the court orders
Nationwide to produce the information requested in Interrogatory Number 10 and Request for
Production Number 23 but restricts the required production to those bad faith cases against
Nationwide, but not its subsidiaries, arising from automobile insurance claims in South Carolina
for a period of two (2) years preceding the filing date of this case. 3
The court further grants Nationwide’s request to limit the scope of the production sought
in Plaintiff’s Request for Production Number 35 and Number 44 regarding information related to
the wages, payment of bonuses, job performance and disciplinary actions taken against any of
the Nationwide personnel involved in this case. The payment of bonuses to employees for
successfully denying or delaying otherwise valid claims, assuming such bonus payments exist,
may be probative of Plaintiff’s bad faith claim in this case. However, Nationwide has argued
convincingly that granting access to employee files beyond the issue of bonuses would be
irrelevant and unduly burdensome, especially in light of the fact that Nationwide admitted in a
previous answer to one of Plaintiff’s interrogatories that none of the employees involved in this
case had been the subject of disciplinary action. Therefore, the court orders Nationwide to
2
Osterling’s Affidavit states that the production required in the court’s previous order would
take a total of 89-97 days to complete. Trial is set in less than eighty days. Additionally,
Osterling estimates that the cost of the requested production would exceed $400,000.
3
Nationwide sought, in the alternative for the court to hold its ruling as to Request for
Production Number 23 in abeyance pending the resolution of summary judgment motions and/or
completion of an effort at mediation. The case has since been mediated by a United States
Magistrate Judge. Additionally, no summary judgment motions have yet been filed regarding the
bad faith, breach of contract, and abuse of process claims in this case. Therefore the court denies
Nationwide’s request to hold its ruling in abeyance.
4
comply with the requested production but limits the scope of the production to information
regarding incentives paid, if any, to Nationwide employees for their work on Plaintiff’s case.
The court further reconsiders its prior order compelling Nationwide to provide
information under Plaintiff’s Request for Production Number 33 and Number 34 regarding
explanatory documents about bonus and incentive programs. The court orders Nationwide to
produce the requested documents explaining or promoting bonus or incentive programs that were
in place at the time Plaintiff filed her claim and that were available to those Nationwide
employees involved in Plaintiff’s claims.
With regard to Plaintiff’s Request for Production 45 seeking information related to
Nationwide’s legal fees and costs accrued in this litigation so far, the court finds it appropriate to
limit the scope of such information to those litigation costs accrued prior to the filing of
Plaintiff’s bad faith claim. The court finds Plaintiff’s argument convincing that legal funds
expended by Nationwide on this case prior to the filing of the bad faith action may be relevant to
Nationwide’s alleged efforts to deny this claim, if those efforts were, in fact, made in bad faith.
Nationwide need not produce invoices or other written communications between it and its
counsel, but must provide an accounting of its legal fees paid prior to the filing of Plaintiff’s bad
faith action.
With regard to Plaintiff’s Request for Production Number 15, which seeks Nationwide’s
instructional materials related to employee training in processing claims, the court orders
Nationwide to produce the requested training manual and instructional materials regarding the
processing of claims that were in effect when Plaintiff made her claim through the date on which
Plaintiff filed the instant action and which were viewed by or related to trainings undertaken by
the individuals involved with Plaintiff’s claims. Similarly, the court amends its earlier ruling
5
with regard to Request for Production Number 30 and restricts the required production for
training and instructional materials regarding what is a “resident relative” to those materials that
were in effect when Plaintiff made her claim through the date on which Plaintiff filed the instant
action and which were viewed by or related to trainings undertaken by the individuals involved
with Plaintiff’s claims.
With regard to Plaintiff’s Request for Production Number 43 seeking materials related to
its litigation process and protocols, the court further limits the required production to documents
or manuals that are relevant to the time period of Plaintiff’s claim and which are specifically
related to the handling of Plaintiff’s claim.
Finally, the court denies Nationwide’s request that the costs of production be shifted to
Plaintiff in this case. The court finds no reason to shift costs given the limitations on the scope
of discovery granted herein. Nationwide is ordered to comply with the production as limited
above within twenty (20) days given the looming trial date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
July 2, 2013
Florence, South Carolina
6
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?