OneBeacon Insurance Company v. T. Wade Welch & Associates et al

Filing 191

ORDER regarding discovery dispute.(Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(rkonieczny)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
ONE BEACON INSURANCE COMPANY ,
Plaintiff,
v.
T. WADE WELCH & ASSOCIATES, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION H-11-3061

O RDER
The order relates to a discovery dispute between Plaintiff OneBeacon Insurance Company
(“OneBeacon”) and intervenor DISH Network Corporation (“DISH”). OneBeacon objected to
special interrogatories propounded by DISH requesting the number of insurance applications in
which a law firm applicant stated “yes” to the question concerning previous reprimands, sanctions
or fines, how often OneBeacon declined the applications when they contained a “yes” answer, and
how many applications OneBeacon declined because the applicant was ordered to pay an opposing
party’s attorney fees. Dkt. 174. Pursuant to this court’s procedures, the parties submitted letter
briefs to the court about their discovery dispute, and the court conducted a discovery conference
regarding the dispute on May 17, 2013. Dkts. 170, 173. The court ordered the parties to submit
short briefs on the issues of relevance and materiality by noon on May 24, 2013. Dkt. 173.
OneBeacon and DISH both submitted short briefs on May 24, 2013. Dkts. 174-76. None
of the defendants submitted briefs by this date. On June 3, 2013, OneBeacon and DISH both filed
replies to each other’s briefs. Dkts. 181-82. Defendants T. Wade Welch and T. Wade Welch &
Associates (collectively, the “Welch Firm”) also filed a reply to OneBeacon’s briefing. Dkt. 180.
OneBeacon objected to the Welch Firm’s reply and moved to strike it because the Welch Firm did

not file an initial brief by May 24, 2013. Dkt. 190. The court agrees that the Welch Firm waived
its argument by failing to file a brief as ordered by May 24. Accordingly, the Welch Firm’s reply
brief (Dkt. 180) is hereby STRICKEN.
As for the requested discovery, the court finds that the information DISH seeks is
discoverable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. However, the interrogatories are overly
broad and unduly burdensome and should thus be geographically and temporally confined. DISH
has agreed to narrow the time period to the years 2006 through 2009 (see Dkt. 175), which the court
finds reasonable. As far as geographic scope, since this case involves the Texas Insurance Code, the
court finds that limiting the request to Texas—as opposed to nationwide—is appropriate. Therefore,
OneBeacon is hereby ORDERED to answer the interrogatories as propounded, except that it may
limit the time period of the requests to the years 2006 through 2009 and the geographic scope of the
response to Texas.
It is so ORDERED.
Signed at Houston, Texas on June 27, 2013.

___________________________________
Gray H. Miller
United States District Judge

2