Rigby et al v. American Family Mutual Insurance
Filing
24
MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER granting 22 Motion to Quash Subpoena. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 2/13/2019. (mas)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION
TODD RIGBY, an individual; et al.,
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 2:18-cv-00332-DB-PMW
AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign
corporation; et al.,
Defendants.
District Judge Dee Benson
Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
District Judge Dee Benson referred this case to Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Before the court is third party National Vendor, LLC’s
(“National Vendor”) motion to quash a subpoena (“Subpoena”) issued to National Vendor by
Plaintiffs Todd Rigby and Tiffany Rigby (collectively, “Plaintiffs”). 2 The court has carefully
reviewed the written memoranda submitted by the parties. Pursuant to Civil Rule 7-1(f) of the
Rules of Practice for the United States District Court for the District of Utah, the court has
concluded that oral argument is not necessary and will decide the motion on the basis of the
written memoranda. See DUCivR 7-1(f).
Before addressing the above-referenced motion, the court sets forth the following general
legal standards governing discovery. Rule 26(b)(1) provides:
1
See docket no. 14.
2
See docket no. 22.
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 district court has broad discretion over the control of discovery,
and [the Tenth Circuit] will not set aside discovery rulings absent an abuse of that discretion.”
Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Merrill Scott & Assocs., Ltd., 600 F.3d 1262, 1271 (10th Cir. 2010)
(quotations and citations omitted).
Plaintiffs brought suit against Defendant American Family Mutual Insurance Company
(“American Family”), claiming several breaches in their insurance policy after their house was
destroyed by fire and water damage, as well as asserting a bad-faith claim. National Vendor,
which is not a party to this lawsuit, is a business that provides personal property contents
services to insurance carriers. National Vendor provided contents services for American Family
with respect to the insurance claim made by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs issued the Subpoena to
National Vendor requesting, in part, its “employee files of the personnel who assisted” on the
insurance claims. 3 National Vendor agreed to produce all information requested in the Subpoena
except for the above-referenced personnel files. National Vendor seeks a court order limiting the
Subpoena and providing protection from producing such personnel files.
3
Docket no. 22, Exhibit A at 2.
2
In its motion, National Vendor asserts that, since Plaintiffs’ claims in this case arose out
of a dispute regarding payment of fire and flood claims, Plaintiffs’ request for National Vendor’s
party personnel files is not narrowly tailored and is outside the scope of permissible recovery.
National Vendor asserts that such personnel files contain personal, private, and irrelevant
information and that discovery of such information “would not lead to the discovery of relevant
material.” 4
In response, Plaintiffs assert that the personnel files are related and relevant to their
claims against American Family, specifically the bad-faith claim. Plaintiffs argue that they found
deposition evidence pointing to bad faith on the part of American Family agents. Plaintiffs also
assert that there is evidence that National Vendor personnel have acknowledged the “that
American Family’s process in not paying Plaintiffs’ actual replacement value claim was
abnormal.” 5
The Tenth Circuit has explained that “personnel files often contain sensitive personal
information . . . and it is not unreasonable to be cautious about ordering their entire contents
disclosed willy-nilly.” Regan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641, 648 (10th Cir. 2008).
Further, “district courts should not neglect their power to restrict discovery [to protect] a party or
person from annoyance, embarrassment, [or] oppression.” Id. at 649 (alterations in original)
(quotations and citations omitted).
4
Docket no. 22 at 3.
5
Docket no. 23 at 2.
3
In this case, the Subpoena requests “[a]ll documents evidencing or relating to
[Plaintiffs]’s fire/flood claims” from National Vendor, including any “employee files of
personnel who assisted” on those claims. 6 The personnel files requested in the Subpoena go
beyond the scope of permissible discovery because the requested information likely contains
personal and private information of nonparties. Furthermore, production of the entire personnel
files would likely disclose information that is not relevant to Plaintiffs’ claims against American
Family. Had Plaintiffs’ request been more narrowly tailored to seek strictly relevant information,
the outcome here may have been different. See Regan-Touhy, 526 F.3d at 649 (“[H]ad Ms.
Touhy issued a more narrowly targeted request . . . , we would face a very different question.”).
For the foregoing reasons, National Vendor’s motion to quash the Subpoena 7 is
GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 13th day of February, 2019.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL M. WARNER
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
6
Docket no. 22, Exhibit A at 2.
7
See docket no. 22.
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?