Taylor v. Security National Insurance Co

Filing 53

Order re 42 Notice of Hearing. On January 9, 2018, this Court held a status conference with counsel of record for all parties, during which a number of outstanding discovery issues were addressed. The parties have agreed to cooperate in resolving a number of disputes, but have sought court intervention on an issue. Specifically, Plaintiff has requested documents that were produced by the Defendant in a prior, related lawsuit involving a similar insurance coverage disp ute: Sec. Nat. Ins. Co. v. Grandsouth Bank, et al., No. 6:17-cv-00011-MGL (D.S.C.) (the prior litigation). After hearing arguments from counsel, the Court is of the opinion that the documents are discoverable withlimitations. As set out. Signed by Honorable Donald C Coggins, Jr on 1/11/2018. (abuc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
GREENVILLE DIVISION
Robert Taylor,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Security National Insurance Co.,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________)

C/A No. 6:17-cv-02379-DCC

ORDER

On January 9, 2018, this Court held a status conference with counsel of record for all
parties, during which a number of outstanding discovery issues were addressed. The parties have
agreed to cooperate in resolving a number of disputes, but have sought court intervention on an
issue. Specifically, Plaintiff has requested documents that were produced by the Defendant in a
prior, related lawsuit involving a similar insurance coverage dispute: Sec. Nat. Ins. Co. v.
Grandsouth Bank, et al., No. 6:17-cv-00011-MGL (D.S.C.) (“the prior litigation”). After hearing
arguments from counsel, the Court is of the opinion that the documents are discoverable with
limitations. Plaintiff is not permitted to discovery of the settlement documents from the prior
litigation or any settlement discussions that would be protected by Federal Rule of Evidence 408.
Nor is Plaintiff entitled to any documents that would covered by the attorney-client privilege.1
Defendant raised two additional issues during the status conference. First, Defendant
contends that the parties to the prior litigation should have the opportunity to object to the
production of the information Plaintiff requests related to their claim files. Second, Defendant
asks for the opportunity to redact any personal identifying information from the documents. As to

1

All documents withheld on the basis of attorney-client privilege shall be included in a privilege
log.
1

Defendant’s first concern, the Court orders that Defendant provide a copy of this Order to counsel
for the parties from the prior litigation by Tuesday, January 16, 2018. Defendant must file
documentation showing service by Friday, January 12, 2018. The parties from the prior litigation
shall then have until Tuesday, January 23, 2018, to file objections to the production of documents.
Objections shall address the issue of the standing of third-parties to object as well as the substance
of the objections. As to Defendant’s second concern, the Court will give Defendant until February
5, 2018, to redact confidential information, such as account numbers and social security numbers,
from the documents. The parties are reminded that there is a Confidentiality Order in place in this
case, see ECF No. 39, which should ameliorate some of Defendant’s concerns about
confidentiality and protected information.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Donald C. Coggins, Jr.
United States District Judge
January 11, 2018
Spartanburg, South Carolina

2