First American Title Insurance et al v. Northwest Title Insurance Agency et al
Filing
193
MEMORANDUM DECISION granting in part and denying in part 104 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 5/18/16 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE
COMPANY and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE
COMPANY, LLC,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Case No. 2:15-cv-00229-DN-PMW
Plaintiffs,
v.
District Judge David Nuffer
NORTHWEST TITLE INSURANCE
AGENCY, LLC, et al.
Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
Defendants.
District Judge David Nuffer referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Judge Nuffer ordered the parties to follow the Short
Form Discovery Motion Procedure.2 Before the court is Defendant Michael Smith’s “Short
Form Discovery Motion Compelling Complete Answers to Michael Smith’s First Set of
Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and Things – Non-Compete
Agreements.”3
Mr. Smith and other individual defendants were employed at Equity Title, a small
company that was taken over by FATCO. Defendants contend that they did not sign noncompete agreements with FATCO, and that FATCO is improperly attempting to enforce noncompete agreements that individual defendants had with Equity Title. The instant motion seeks
1
Docket no. 27.
2
Docket no. 39.
3
Docket no. 104.
an order compelling plaintiffs First American Title Insurance Company and First American Title
Company, LLC (“FATCO”) to produce the following categories of documents:
1. “[A]ny employment agreement executed by any FATCO Utah employee that contains
a non-compete agreement.”4
2. All communications between Mr. Smith and either of two FATCO employees, Kurt
Andrewsen and Mark Webber, from 2004 through March 9, 2015.5
3. All documents constituting an assumption or assignment of the employment contracts
with Equity Title.6
FATCO objects that Category 1 is irrelevant.
FATCO objects that Category 2 is
overbroad and seeks irrelevant documents. FATCO states that it has already produced all
documents responsive to Category 3.
Rule 26(b)(1) states:
The scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any
nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at
stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to
relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery
outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not
be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
The documents in Category 1 appear “relevant to [a] party’s claim or defense and
proportional to the needs of the case” under the liberal discovery standards. Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(1). In contrast, the document request for Category 2 is clearly overbroad, and the vast
4
Docket no. 104-1 at 20 (Request for Production No. 4).
5
Id. at 24-25 (Requests for Production Nos. 13 & 14).
6
Id. at 20 (Request for Production No. 5).
2
majority of the responsive documents would be irrelevant.
Mr. Smith states that these
communications “are relevant to Mr. Smith’s contract negotiations and will show that FATCO
attempted to convince Mr. Smith to sign a new employment contract—which he refused to do.”7
While the documents that Mr. Smith states he is attempting to seek through this request appear
relevant, the request as drafted is sweeping in breadth and would require the production of
documents that are clearly not relevant.
With regard to Category 3, FATCO correctly notes that the court cannot compel a party
to produce documents that do not exist, and the court will not order a party to produce documents
that the party has already produced.
Accordingly, Mr. Smith’s motion to compel8 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART as discussed herein.
Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order, FATCO is ordered to produce all
documents responsive to Categories 1 and 3, to the extent that the documents exist. FATCO
does not have to produce documents that it has already produced.
The court hereby limits the scope of Category 2 and orders production of documents
responsive to that amended category as follows: Within fourteen (14) days of the date of this
order, FATCO is ordered to produce all communications between Mr. Smith and either Kurt
Andrewsen or Mark Webber, from 2004 through March 9, 2015, that relate to (1) negotiation
of a new employment contract with Mr. Smith, or (2) Mr. Smith’s signing a new
employment contract.
FATCO does not have to produce documents that it has already
produced.
7
Docket no. 104 at 2-3.
8
Id.
3
If necessary, amended responses must be served within fourteen (14) of the date of this
order.
Having carefully considered the issues and circumstances here, the court will not award
attorney’s fees and costs at this time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 18th day of May, 2016.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL M. WARNER
United States Magistrate Judge
4
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?