Floyd v. Geico Insurance Company

Filing 32

ORDER granting Defendant's 25 Motion for Protective Order signed by U.S. District Judge John C Coughenour. (TH)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

JOHN ANDREW FLOYD,

10

Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.

11
12

CASE NO. C17-1154-JCC

GEICO INSURANCE COMPANY,

13

Defendant.

14
15

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion for a protective order and/or

16

for clarification (Dkt. No. 25). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the

17

relevant record, the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby GRANTS the motion for

18

the reasons explained herein.

19

This Court recently entered an order granting in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt.

20

No. 22). The order directed Defendant to provide “a full and adequate response to Interrogatory

21

No. 11 . . . on a nationwide basis for all Continuing Unit claims supervisors similarly situated to

22

Plaintiff.” (Id. at 5) (emphasis added). 1 The parties disagree as to the scope of the Court’s

23

directive. Plaintiff believes a response is required for all entries of default judgment. (See

24
25
26

1

Plaintiff’s Interrogatory No. 11 sought comparator information, namely disciplinary
actions taken against Claims Unit supervisors following an entry of default judgment on cases
they oversaw. (Dkt. Nos. 13 at 5, 15-12 at 8.)
ORDER
C17-1154-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

generally Dkt. No. 28.) Defendant believes a response is required only for entries of default

2

judgment on claims not yet referred to counsel and for which Defendant had not yet disclaimed

3

coverage. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 25, 30.) It is undisputed that neither Plaintiff nor his

4

subordinate had referred the claim to legal counsel or disclaimed coverage when default

5

judgment was entered. (Dkt. No. 25 at 7–9.)

6

The Court CLARIFIES that for purposes of its prior order (Dkt. No. 22), a Claims Unit

7

supervisor is only similarly situated to Plaintiff if he or she supervised a claim in which a default

8

judgment was entered before (1) it was referred to counsel or (2) Defendant disclaimed coverage.

9

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for a protective order (Dkt. No. 25) is GRANTED. Discovery

10

need not be provided on entries of default judgment occurring after a Claims Unit had referred

11

the claim to legal counsel or Defendant disclaimed coverage.

12

DATED this 7th day of June 2018.

13

A

14
15
16

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C17-1154-JCC
PAGE - 2