Allstate Insurance Company v. Hineman
ORDER entered GRANTING 14 First MOTION to Expedite Discovery. Given the factors discussed above, the court finds and concludes that there is good cause to grant the motion for expedited discovery. Allstate must respond to Hineman's First Requests for Production, (Docket Entry No. 14, Ex. D), no later than September 22, 2017. (Signed by Chief Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(leddins, 4)
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,
KENT L. HINEMAN,
August 23, 2017
David J. Bradley, Clerk
CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-1794
Allstate Insurance Company sued a former employee, Kent Hineman, alleging that he took
confidential Allstate information when he left and is using that information to solicit Allstate
customers on behalf of a competing insurance business. Allstate moved for expedited limited
discovery. (Docket Entry No. 3). Hineman did not respond to that motion. The court granted
Allstate’s motion in part and denied it in part, ordering Hineman to respond to all of Allstate’s
interrogatories and requests for production, except for one that asked for all documents, exhibits,
and evidence that Hineman intends to use at any deposition, hearing, or trial. (Docket Entry No. 13).
Hineman then moved for expedited discovery, consisting of 8 requests for production and 6
interrogatories. (Docket Entry No. 14). Allstate did not respond. Although the motion could be
granted as unopposed, see S. D. Tex. LR 7.2, the court finds good cause to allow the expedited
Courts typically examine several nonexclusive factors in determining whether there is good
cause to order expedited discovery. These factors include: “(1) whether a preliminary injunction
is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery requests; (3) the purpose for requesting the expedited
discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests; and (5) how far in advance
of the typical discovery process the request was made.” St. Louis Grp., Inc. v. Metals & Additives
Corp., 275 F.R.D. 236, 240 n.4 (S.D. Tex. 2011) (citing Sunflower Elec. Power Corp. v. Sebelius,
2009 WL 774340, at *2 (D. Kan. Mar. 20, 2009)).
Although there is no pending motion for a preliminary injunction, Allstate states that it
intends to seek an injunction if discovery supports its information and belief that Hineman is
violating his contract obligations and misappropriating trade secrets. (Docket Entry No. 3 at p. 4).
Hineman’s interrogatories and requests for production are narrowly tailored to seek information
relevant to defending against those claims. The discovery requests seek information about Allstate’s
employment of Hineman, the execution of the confidentiality and noncompete agreements, the
confidential information allegedly misappropriated, and the customers allegedly wrongly solicited.
(Docket Entry No. 14, Ex. D). The burden on Allstate is not so significant as to lead Allstate to file
a response to the motion. Finally, expediting discovery here allows both parties to proceed with
discovery in a time frame consistent with the court’s earlier order granting expedited discovery for
Given the factors discussed above, the court finds and concludes that there is good cause to
grant the motion for expedited discovery. Allstate must respond to Hineman’s First Requests for
Production, (Docket Entry No. 14, Ex. D), no later than September 22, 2017.
SIGNED on August 23, 2017, at Houston, Texas.
Lee H. Rosenthal
Chief United States District Judge
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?