Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Plambeck et al

Filing 208

Memorandum Order Denying 201 Motion to Compel filed by Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate County Mutual Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, Allstate Insurance Company. Chateau's request for costs and attorney's fees also is denied. (see order) (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeff Kaplan on 12/29/08) (lmp)

Download PDF
IN THE LINITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT NORTHERN DISTRICTOF TEXAS D A L L A S DIVISION A L L S T A T EINSURANCECOMPANY. E T AL. Plaintiffs. VS. M I C H A E L KENT PLAMBECK,D.C., E T AL. Defendants. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ NO.3-08-CV-0388-M MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel the production of documentsby non-party Chateau M a r k e t i n g ,Inc. ("Chateau"), companyownedby Defendant a Michael Kent Plambeckthat provides seeking,inter alia: t e l e m a r k e t i n gservicesfor chiropracticclinics. At issueis a Rule 45 subpoena (2) ( 1 ) recordsof payments telemarketers, including ledgersand spreadsheets; copiesof W-2 or to (3) 1 0 9 9 statements issuedto telemarketers; recordsof paymentsto personswho obtainedpolice and reportsand police report information; (4) recordsoftransfers offunds to Chateauby defendants; (5) documentsusedto determinethe amountofpayments madeto telemarketers.Although Chateau for h a sproducedW-2 and 1099statements CharlesMora and JohnnySilva, the only telemarketers who contactedany patientsidentified by plaintiffs in their complaint, and hasofferedto stipulatethat Group, Inc. t h e paymentsto Mora and Silva were receivedfrom DefendantChiropracticStrategies ( " C S G " ) , it objectsto the productionof any other documents relevancygrounds. Chateaualso on feesincurredin responding what it deemsa "frivolous" motion brought s e e k scostsand attorney's to positionsin a Joint StatusReport filed on i n "bad faith." The partieshave briefed their respective D e c e m b e r23,2008, and the motion is ripe for determination. Rule 26(b) allows a par:tyto obtain discovery "regarding any nonprivileged matter that is r e l e v a n tto any party'sclaim or defense[.]" Feo. R. Ctv. P. 26(b)(1). The information soughtneed n o t be admissibleattrial "if the discoveryappears reasonably calculated leadto the discoveryof to a d m i s s i b l eevidence." Id. As the parfy seekingdiscovery,plaintiffs must establishthis threshold b u r d e n . SeeE.E.O.C.v. Renaissance Organization,No. 3-05-CV-1063-8,2006 WL 832504at III * l (N.D.Tex. Mar. 30,2006) (Kaplan,J.), citing VardonGolf Co., Inc. v. BBMG Golf Ltd.,156 F . R . D . 641,650 (N.D. Ill. 1994) ("To place the burdenof proving that the evidencesoughtis not reasonablycalculatedto lead to the discovery of admissibleevidenceon the opponentof discovery is to ask that party to prove a negative. This is an unfair burden,as it would require aparty to refute a l l possible alternative uses of the evidence,possibly including some never imagined by the p r o p o n e n t . " ) . Once plaintiffs establishthat the documentsrequestedare within the scope of p e r m i s s i b l ediscovery,the burdenshiftsto Chateau showwhy discoveryshouldnot be permitted. to S e eSpiegelberg Manufacturing,Inc. v. Hancock,No. 3-07-CV-1314-G,2007 WL 4258246at*1 ( N . D . Tex. Dec. 3,2007) (Kaplan,J.) (citing cases). plaintiffs have failed to show that the documentsrequested Judgedagainstthesestandards, from Chateau,other than documentspertaining to Charles Mora and Johnny Silva, are relevant w i t h i n the meaningof Rule 26(bXl). Chateauhas represented Mora and Silva were the only that telemarketers who contacted any of the patients identified by plaintiffs in their complaint--a representationplaintiffs do not dispute. In addition, Chateauand the Chiropractic Defendantshave offered to stipulateto the sourceof paymentsmadeto Mora and Silva. To allow plaintiffs unfettered a c c e s sto Chateau's financial records in hopesof finding other evidencethat may or may not be a d m i s s i b l eat trial would amountto nothing more than a fishing expedition. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion to compel the production of documents by Chateau feesalsois denied. request costsand attorney's for M a r k e t i n g ,Inc. [Doc. #201] is denied. Chateau's S O ORDERED. D A T E D : December29. 2008. STATES MAGISTRATEJUDGE.

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?