Floyd v. Geico Insurance Company

Filing 46

ORDER granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 35 Motion to Compel 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 Plaintiff’s second motion to compel (Dkt. No. 35).

16

Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby

17

GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion for the reasons explained herein.

18

The Court has described the facts of this case in previous discovery rulings (Dkt. Nos. 22,

19

32) and will not repeat them here. Plaintiff now seeks an order directing Defendant to produce

20

the following: all communications between Plaintiff and the claims adjusters he supervised for

21

the last five years and the personnel files for alleged comparators located in Defendant’s Seattle

22

office. (Dkt. No. 43 at 3–7.) Defendant asserts the information is irrelevant and overly

23

burdensome. (Dkt. No. 40 at 8–12.)

24

As previously indicated, the Court strongly disfavors discovery motions and prefers that

25

the parties resolve the issues on their own. However, when necessary, the Court will entertain

26

motions to compel consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1). Litigants “may
ORDER
C17-1154-JCC
PAGE - 1

1

obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of

2

any party.” Surfvivor Media, Inc. v. Survivor Prods., 406 F.3d 625, 635 (9th Cir. 2005).

3

“Relevant information for purposes of discovery is information reasonably calculated to lead to

4

the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id.

5

As the Court understands, Defendant alleges that it terminated Plaintiff, at least in part,

6

based upon on the manner in which he supervised claims adjustors on the Ozog (#031484803-

7

052), Mealing (#020013S6S-043), and Musselman (#015069364-03036) claims. (Dkt. No. 42 at

8

5); (see Dkt. No. 42-5) (internal memorandum detailing Defendant’s supervision concerns

9

regarding these claims). Therefore, any and all communications, regardless of the form taken,

10

between Plaintiff and his claim adjusters with respect to these claims is discoverable.

11

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant to produce all communications between Plaintiff

12

and his claims adjusters regarding these three claims, without temporal limitation, in a readable

13

format. Such information includes, but is not limited to, handwritten notes, demand logs, e-mails,

14

instant messages, text messages, as well as all Outlook events or entries, including invites and

15

reminders. The Court does not find communications with adjusters relating to other claims to be

16

relevant to this matter.

17

Comparator evidence is only relevant to the extent the employee is similarly situated to

18

Plaintiff. Hawn v. Exec. Jet Mgt., Inc., 615 F.3d 1151, 1156 (9th Cir. 2010). To be similarly

19

situated, the employee’s situation must be “sufficiently similar” to Plaintiff’s to “support at least

20

a minimal inference that the difference to treatment may be attributable to discrimination.”

21

McGuinness v. Lincoln Hall, 263 F.3d 49, 54 (2d Cir. 2001) (cited for this proposition in Aragon

22

v. Republic Silver State Disposal, Inc., 292 F.3d 654, 660 (9th Cir. 2002)). As the Court

23

previously held, the only employees similarly situated to Plaintiff are supervisors who

24

“supervised a claim in which a default judgment was entered before (1) it was referred to counsel

25

or (2) Defendant disclaimed coverage.” (Dkt. No. 32 at 2.) Neither the remaining supervisors in

26

Seattle nor Mr. Quesada meet this definition. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 35, 43.) Therefore,
ORDER
C17-1154-JCC
PAGE - 2

1

Plaintiff has not established the minimal inference necessary to show relevance with respect to

2

these employees.

3

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 35) is GRANTED in

4

part and DENIED in part. Defendant is DIRECTED to provide all communications, regardless of

5

their form, between Plaintiff and his claims adjusters relating to the Ozog (#031484803-052),

6

Mealing (#020013S6S-043), and Musselman (#015069364-03036) claims. Defendant need not

7

respond further to Requests for Production Nos. 18–22 or 28.

8

DATED this 25th day of July 2018.

A

9
10
11

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
ORDER
C17-1154-JCC
PAGE - 3