Jarjour et al v. Unitrin Auto and Home Insurance Company

Filing 18

ORDER granting in part dft's 11 Motion to Compel by Judge John C Coughenour.(RS)

Download PDF
THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 ANTOINE JARJOUR and ROULA JARJOUR, 10 Plaintiffs, 11 CASE NO. C13-2227-JCC ORDER v. 12 UNITRIN AUTO AND HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, 13 14 Defendant. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 11). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court finds oral 17 argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS IN PART the motion for the reasons explained 18 herein. 19 20 I. BACKGROUND This is an insurance case related to water damage at Plaintiffs’ home. After a storm in 21 November 2012, Plaintiffs filed a claim for water damage with Defendant Unitrin Insurance 22 Company (―Unitrin‖). During an investigation of the damage, the contractor discovered 23 significant water damage, the source and extent of which is unknown or disputed. Unitrin paid 24 some amount for water damage resulting from the storm. Plaintiffs, however, allege that Unitrin 25 insufficiently investigated the scope of the water damage. (Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 2.) Plaintiffs filed an 26 ORDER PAGE - 1 1 action in state court, which Unitrin removed to federal court in December 2013. (Dkt. No. 1.) 2 Defendant served discovery requests in February 2014, and Plaintiffs responded to them 3 on March 28, 2014, the same day that the parties had a Rule 26(f) conference. (Dkt. No. 13 at 3.) 4 On April 22, 2014, the parties attended a status conference and trial was set for April 13, 2015. 5 (Dkt. No. 9.) On April 23, 2014, Defendant provided Plaintiffs with a copy of its claim file. Many of Plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses stated that Plaintiffs’ investigation was 6 7 ―ongoing,‖ listed several sources of information that Plaintiffs believed would assist in making 8 the determinations, and stated that ―Plaintiffs plan to supplement this answer as more 9 information becomes available.‖ Defendants have filed a motion to compel ―full and complete 10 substantive responses to Unitrin’s interrogatories within five (5) business days‖ and sanctions of 11 $3,500 for failure to provide responses earlier. (Dkt. No. 11 at 7.) 12 II. DISCUSSION 13 A party requesting discovery may move for an order compelling such discovery. Fed. R. 14 Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The Federal Rules strongly encourage parties to resolve discovery disputes 15 privately and discourage them from seeking needless court intervention. 16 Defendant complains about Plaintiffs’ boilerplate responses to Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 17 5, and 7. These interrogatories seek a description of the allegedly covered damage, an 18 identification of the relevant policy provisions, and descriptions of the relevant acts of bad faith 19 and CPA violations. (Dkt. No. 11 at 5–6.) Plaintiff argues that the primary issue in this case is 20 Defendant’s failure to investigate and that Plaintiff is now in the process of doing the 21 investigation that should have been completed by Defendant. (Dkt. No. 13 at 6.) In particular, 22 Plaintiff notes that the cause of some rot and mold—which appears to be one of the primary 23 topics about which Defendant seeks clarification—may be a plumbing leak, and that an internal 24 email in Defendant’s claims file provides some support for investigating this possibility. (Dkt. 25 No. 13 at 4.) 26 Having reviewed the responses identified by Defendant, the Court agrees that they are ORDER PAGE - 2 1 insufficient and that Plaintiff must provide greater detail. The Court GRANTS the motion to 2 compel and DIRECTS Plaintiff to fully supplement the answers within ninety (90) days. The 3 Court DENIES Defendant’s request for sanctions. 4 III. CONCLUSION 5 For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 11) is GRANTED. 6 DATED this 18th day of July 2014. 7 8 9 A 10 11 12 John C. Coughenour UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER PAGE - 3

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?