Mid-State Auto., Inc. v. Harco Nat'l Ins. Co.

MID-STATE AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. HARCO NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:19-cv-00407

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION

March 25, 2020

ORDER

Plaintiffs Mid-State Automotive, Inc. and Mid-State Ford, LLC (collectively, "Plaintiffs") bring this action against their insurance company, Harco National Insurance Co. ("Defendant"), alleging claims for breach of contract and bad faith in the insurance context arising out of Defendant's failure to compensate them after a fire loss at their car dealership. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiffs served their first set of discovery requests on Defendant on September 11, 2019. (ECF No. 20.) Before this Court is Plaintiffs' supplemental motion to compel Defendant to respond to some of those requests. (ECF No. 73.)¹ For the reasons explained more fully herein, the motion (ECF No. 73) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

A. Interrogatories Nos. 2-4

These interrogatories request that Defendant identify the individuals who were involved in handling Plaintiffs' fire loss claim and provide certain information about each of them, including a detailed description of their involvement and information about their training. (ECF No. 73 at 13.) Defendant provided the requested information "for the four individuals who were most intimately involved in handling [Plaintiffs'] claim" (ECF No. 85 at 10), but Plaintiffs seek that information relative to six additional individuals whose names were mentioned in the claim and special investigation unit ("SIU") files that Defendant produced (ECF No. 73 at 13-14; ECF No. 92 at 7). Defendant argues that those six individuals did not "play[] a significant role in the investigation or adjustment of the claim" and that "the nature and extent of their involvement . . . is clear from [the] document production." (ECF No. 85 at 10.) Plaintiffs contend that the six individuals "were identified by [the principal claims investigator who handled Plaintiffs' claim] as people above him in the company who were involved in setting of the reserves and getting authority to make offers." (ECF No. 92 at 7.)

As an initial matter, if Plaintiffs know who these individuals are and how they contributed to handling Plaintiffs' claim, it is unclear why Plaintiffs feel that it is necessary for this Court to order Defendant to provide that information. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs' requests are broad: Interrogatory No. 2 seeks information about anyone "who performed any work or was in any manner involved in the adjustment, supervision, investigation or handling of [Plaintiffs'] claim[]." (ECF No. 73 at 13.) Notably, it is not limited only to those who were "most intimately involved." (ECF No. 85 at 10.) Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery related to the individuals who participated, however minimally, in Defendant's treatment of their claim.

Interrogatory No. 4, by contrast, is not as broad as Interrogatory No. 2: it requests information about "the training of all claims personnel involved in the handling of [Plaintiffs' claim]." (ECF No. 73 at 13 (emphasis supplied).) To the extent any of the six individuals Plaintiffs have identified are not "claims personnel," Interrogatory No. 4 does not purport to apply to those individuals, and their information is therefore not responsive to Interrogatory No. 4, even if it is responsive to Interrogatory No. 2.

In sum, Plaintiffs' supplemental motion to compel (ECF No. 73) is GRANTED as to Interrogatories Nos. 2-4. Defendant is ORDERED to respond to Interrogatories Nos. 2-4 as set forth herein within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order.

B. Interrogatory No. 6

This interrogatory requests that Defendant provide the name, address, and telephone number of every individual who has worked as a claims adjuster for Defendant on commercial fire loss claims in the past five years, even if he or she is no longer employed by Defendant. (ECF No. 73 at 14.) Defendant agreed to provide "the identit[ies] of [its employees] who were responsible for handing the Plaintiffs' claim," but Plaintiffs argue that "limiting this interrogatory to only individuals that were involved in the subject claim would severely prejudice [their] ability to litigate [their] bad faith claim." (Id. at 15.) Plaintiffs contend that the requested information will shed light on Defendant's "standards for investigating other fire loss claims." (Id.) Defendant, however, asserts that its "handling of Plaintiffs' claim is based on multiple unique variables," such that any information about other claims that Plaintiffs may glean from Defendant's current and former claims adjusters would not be helpful to Plaintiffs in this case. (ECF No. 85 at 11-13.)

Plaintiffs are entitled to information about Defendant's treatment of other, similar claims; indeed, such information is undoubtedly relevant to Plaintiffs' efforts to show that Defendant engaged in unfair settlement practices. See Syl. Pt. 4, Dodrill v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 491 S.E.2d 1 (W. Va. 1996) (setting out showing necessary to establish "general business practice" under statute); see also W. Va. Code § 33-11-4(9). But there are other, more efficient, less intrusive ways for Plaintiffs to obtain that information without having to seek out nonparties who may no longer be employed by Defendant and were not in any manner associated with Defendant's handling of Plaintiffs' claim. See Williams v. Am. Int'l Grp., Inc., No. 2:15-cv-554-JDW-GMB, 2016 WL 2759306, at *1 (M.D. Ala. May 12, 2016) (directing defendant insurance company "to provide phone numbers and last known addresses in their possession" for former employees who "took action on Plaintiff's claims from 2011 to 2013"). To the extent Defendant has not yet provided the requested information for the individuals who were responsible for handling Plaintiffs' claim, it is ORDERED to do so within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order. Plaintiffs' supplemental motion to compel (ECF No. 73) is GRANTED as to Interrogatory No. 6 with regard to those individuals, but it is DENIED as to Interrogatory No. 6 in all other respects.

C. Interrogatory No. 7

This interrogatory requests that Defendant identify its corporate representative who plans to attend the trial in this case and provide that individual's contact information. (ECF No. 73 at 15.) Plaintiffs assert that they need the requested information prior to the close of discovery in order to "adequately prepare for this individual's deposition." (Id.) They anticipate "interrupt[ing] the trial to conduct discovery of [the]representative" if he or she is not identified during the discovery period. (ECF No. 92 at 8.)

Defendant contends that at present, the trial is too distant in the future for it to have ascertained which of its employees may be available to appear on its behalf, and it points out that the individual may not have independent knowledge of the facts of this case. (ECF No. 85 at 13.) It further argues that it has already agreed to designate a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6) designee, whose "testimony will be binding on [Defendant], regardless of who attends trial." (Id.)

Plaintiffs have not shown why it is necessary for Defendant to provide the requested information at this stage of the proceedings. Through the discovery that has been conducted to date, Plaintiffs have ascertained the identities of Defendant's employees who were most significantly involved in evaluating Plaintiffs' claim. Plaintiffs have had—and will continue to have—ample opportunity to obtain discovery about and from those individuals. As Defendant points out, Plaintiffs will also procure, if they have not already, Rule 30(b)(6) deposition testimony that constitutes Defendant's official position as to the facts of this case. In the event that Defendant's trial representative has not been previously identified to Plaintiffs as a result of this discovery, it is incredibly unlikely that the trial representative would have personal knowledge of the facts of the case. Further discovery from this individual would thus be unnecessary. Moreover, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(3)(A)(i) requires each party to disclose its trial witnesses' names and contact information at least thirty days before trial, leaving sufficient time for Plaintiffs to request discovery relating to any witnesses who had not hitherto been identified or to altogether object to their appearance as witnesses forDefendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1). Accordingly, Plaintiffs' supplemental motion to compel (ECF No. 73) is DENIED with respect to Interrogatory No. 7.

D. Requests for Production Nos. 2 & 5-7

These requests seek the production of the claim and SIU files relating to Plaintiffs' fire loss claim. (See ECF No. 73 at 16.) Defendant produced these files to Plaintiffs, but Plaintiffs contend that Defendant did not adequately respond to the requests for production because it redacted certain information from the files and withheld other documents in their entirety. (Id. at 12, 16.)

1. Sufficiency of Privilege Logs

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant's privilege logs for the claim and SIU files are "insufficient" because Defendant did not include entries for the redactions it made to those files. (Id. at 5.) Defendant responds that its privilege logs "identify the small subset of documents that have been withheld in their entirety," and the redactions to various pages of the claim and SIU files are clearly identified and explained. (ECF No. 85 at 2, 4-5.) But Plaintiffs contend that Defendant has not provided enough information for them to determine whether it properly redacted or withheld documents. (See ECF No. 92 at 6.)

"A privilege log must contain 'specific facts which, taken as true, establish the elements of the privilege for each document for which privilege is claimed.'" Westfield Ins. Co. v. Carpenter Reclamation, Inc., 301 F.R.D. 235, 246-47 (S.D.W. Va. 2014) (quotin...