Opinion
Civil Action No. 03-4482.
June 3, 2004
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Raasan Bell's Motion to Compel More Complete Answers to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Doc. No. 11). For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
I. Facts
Plaintiff is the owner of a home located at 6244 North Third Street, Philadelphia, Pa. ("the Property"). (Compl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff resided at this home until September of 2000. ( Id. ¶ 7.) Thereafter, a tenant lived in the Property. On or about, December 23, 1997, Plaintiff purchased an insurance policy for the Property from Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company. ( Id. ¶ 10.) This policy provided $60,000 of coverage for loss sustained by fired. ( Id. ¶ 12.) Plaintiff paid all premiums in connection with this insurance policy. ( Id. ¶ 11.)
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This is a dispute between citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
On or about November 7, 2002, the Property was damaged by fire. As a result of the fire, the Property suffered $99,931.72 in damages. ( Id. ¶ 14.) Defendant was notified of the fire and the loss on November 9, 2002. Defendant later received "extensive claim documentation" from a public adjustment company working on behalf of Plaintiff. On January 1, 2003, Defendant denied Plaintiff's claim. The denial was based upon a provision in the insurance policy that required Plaintiff to be a resident at the property at the time of the fire. Plaintiff contends that he never received a copy of the insurance policy from Defendant and was not aware of the provision. ( Id. ¶ 19.)
Plaintiff brought the instant action for bad faith, breach of contract, and negligence based on Defendant's denial of payment. On August 11, 2003, Defendant was served with Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents. (Doc. No. 13 Exs. A, B.) On November 10, 2003, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Answers to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. (Doc. No. 6.) Defendant responded to the Interrogatories and the Request. We therefore denied Plaintiff's Motion as moot. Subsequently, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion, contending that Defendant "has still failed to provide adequate responses to certain interrogatories and request for production of document." (Doc. No. 13 at 2.) Currently at issue are Interrogatories 4, 5, 6, 7 and 14 and Request for Documents 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 23. We will address each of the interrogatories and requests in turn.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
"It is well-established that the scope and conduct of discovery are within the sound discretion of the trial court." Gaul v. Zep Mfg. Co., Civ.A. No. 03-2439, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1990, at *2-3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 5, 2004) (quoting Marroquin-Manriquez v. INS, 699 F.2d 129, 134 (3d Cir. 1983)). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), a party may seek discovery of "any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter in the pending action." FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). "The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id.
Rule 37 "authorizes a party who has received evasive or incomplete answers to discovery authorized by . . . Rule 26(a) to bring a motion to compel disclosure of the materials sought." Northern v. City of Phila., Civ.A. No. 98-6517, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4278, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 4, 2000). Once a party opposes a discovery request, the party seeking the discovery must demonstrate the relevancy of the information sought. Id. at *5. "When this showing of relevancy is made, the burden then shifts back to the party opposing discovery to show why the discovery should not be permitted." Id. A party's statement "that the discovery sought is overly broad, burdensome, oppressive, vague or irrelevant is `not adequate to voice a successful objection.'" Id. (quoting Josephs v. Harris Corp., 677 F.2d 985, 992 (3d Cir. 1982)). Further, "[i]t is well recognized that the federal rules allow broad and liberal discovery," Pacitti v. Macy's, 193 F.3d 766, 777 (3d Cir. 1999), and relevancy is broadly construed, Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) ("The court should and ordinarily does interpret `relevant' very broadly to mean matter that is relevant to anything that is or may become an issue in the litigation.").
III. DISCUSSION
Interrogatories 4, 5, 6, 7 and Requests for Documents 4, 5, 23
Each of these interrogatories and requests for documents relates to Defendant's procedures and policies regarding providing customers with a copy of the insurance policy.
Interrogatory 4.
Identify all written policies, claim manuals, or other written communication setting forth Allstate's practices, procedures and/or policies regarding providing a copy of a homeowner's policy to its insured.
Interrogatory 5.
Identify all written policies, claim manuals, or other written communication setting forth Allstate's practices, procedures and/or policies regarding the documents to be given to its insured at the beginning of the policy term of a homeowner's policy.
Interrogatory 6.
Identify all written policies, claim manuals, or other written communication setting forth Allstate's practices, procedures and/or policies regarding the documents to be given to its insured during the application process.
Interrogatory 7.
Identify all written policies, claim manuals, or other written communication setting forth Allstate's practices, procedures and/or policies regarding the training of sales agents in connection with informing its insured of policy terms and/or providing documents to its insured regarding the policy in the context of homeowner's policies.
Request for Documents 3.
All claims manuals, policy manuals, policy statements, or other documents regarding the processing of homeowner claims for the past five years, including, but not limited to, any changes or alterations to those manuals, statements or documents.
Request for Documents 4.
All claims manuals, policy manuals, policy statements, or other documents regarding the providing of a copy of the policy to insureds in the context of homeowner's policies, including, but not limited to, any changes or alterations to those manuals, statements or documents.
Request for Documents 5.
All sales manuals or documents provided to sales agents or brokers or other documents regarding the sale of insurance to members of the public for the past [seven years], including, but not limited to, any changes or alterations to those sales manuals or documents.
Plaintiff originally asked for this information for the past five years, but in the instant Motion amends that request to the past seven years, since the policy was purchased in 1997.
Request for Documents 23.
All written policies, claim manuals, or other written communications setting forth the insured's practices, procedures and/or policies regarding the training of sales agents in connection with informing insureds of policy terms and/or providing documents to insured regarding the policy.
(Doc. No. 13 Exs. A, B.)
Defendant argues that these interrogatories and document requests are all "irrelevant, unduly burdensome, and not calculated to lead to admissible evidence." (Doc. No. 14 ¶¶ 4-9, 17-25.) Defendant cites the case of Garvey v. Nat'l Grange Mut. Ins. Co., 167 F.R.D. 391, 396 (E.D. Pa. 1996), for the proposition that claims manuals are not discoverable. In Garvey the court found that the manuals were not relevant to the facts of plaintiff's claim. The court also indicated that "the fact that defendant may have strayed from its internal procedures does not establish bad faith on the part of the defendant in handling the plaintiff's loss." Id.
At this stage in discovery it is too early to determine whether a deviation from stated policies will be relevant, or admissible to establish bad faith or negligence on the part of Defendant. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1) ("The information sought need not be admissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.").
In this case, Plaintiff claims that Defendant's agent failed to provide Plaintiff with a copy of the insurance policy, and that Defendant's denial of Plaintiff's claim was based upon a provision in the policy dealing with occupancy. Assuming that Plaintiff is seeking to discover the manuals and policies to show that either Defendant instructed its agents not to provide certain materials to the insureds, or to show that Defendant was negligent in failing to provide certain materials to Plaintiff, Interrogatories 4, 5, 6, 7, and Request for Documents 4 and 23, are relevant. They specifically address the issue of what information and documents Defendant's agents were directed to provide a policy owner. Defendant cannot reasonably object to the production of these materials. The same cannot be said of Request for Document 3 and 5. These Requests are overly broad. Requests 3 and 5 seek all documents related to the "sales" and the "processing of policy claims." Plaintiff cites the case of Robertson v. Allstate Ins. Co., for the proposition that manuals are relevant where they contain instructions concerning procedures used by employees in processing claims. No. Civ. A. 98-4909, 1999 WL 179754, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 10, 1999). Despite the fact that some relevant material might be contained in the requested materials, these requests are overly broad. We are satisfied that these two Requests should be limited to the "claims manuals, policy manuals, policy statements, or other documents" that were given to Defendant's employees who sold, processed, or otherwise had some interaction with Plaintiff's policy and claim. See Kaufman v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. Civ. A. 97-1114, 1997 WL 703175, at *2 (E.D. Pa. 1997).
Interrogatory 14 and Requests for Documents 10, 11
These interrogatory and document requests seek information relating to Defendant's finances.
Interrogatory 14.
State for each of the last five fiscal years, Allstate's net growth, gross assets, net income or loss, and net operating income or loss from the sale of policies similar to the policy is the subject of Plaintiff's action.
Request for Documents 10.
Copies of Allstate's financial statements, including, but not limited to, balance sheets and income statements, for the years 1998 to present.
Request for Documents 11.
Copies of Allstate's financial statements filed with the Pennsylvania Insurance Department for the years 1998 to present.
(Doc. No. 13 Exs. A, B.) Defendant objects on the basis that the request is "broad, unduly burdensome, and intended to solely to harass Defendant. . . ." (Doc. No. 14 ¶¶ 10-12, 32-34.) Plaintiff cites the case of Adams v. Allstate Ins. Co., 189 F.R.D. 331, 333 (E.D. Pa. 1999), for the proposition that an insurer's financial information is discoverable. In Adams, the plaintiff filed a broad request for defendant's financial statements and financial filings with the Pennsylvania Insurance Department. The court limited the defendant's burden of production to only those financial statements made public. We agree that financial documents already made public can and should be provided to Plaintiff. However, in the instant case, Plaintiff's interrogatory and document requests go beyond just information already made public. Plaintiff asks Defendant to provide financial information solely related to Defendant's sales of polices of the type at issue here. We fail to see the relevance of this information. Moreover, Plaintiff has provided no reason why Defendant should be required to comply with this more burdensome request. Under the circumstances, we will limit the financial information Defendant must provide Plaintiff to that information already made public.
Request for Documents 2, 6, 7, 8
All of these document requests seek documents related to the insurance policy at issue and/or documents Plaintiff was given by Defendant.
Request for Document 2.
A certified copy of Policy No. 6 98 329310 12/232, including all updated endorsements pertaining to that policy.
Request for Document 6.
All documents provided to Plaintiff at the beginning of the policy term.
Request for Document 7.
All documents provided to Plaintiff during the application process.
Request for Document 8.
All documents provided to Plaintiff at any time.
(Doc. No. 13 Ex. B.) With respect to a copy of the insurance policy (No. 6 98 329310 12/23), Defendant's counsel states that it will supply Plaintiff a copy of this policy once it is received from Defendant's corporate office. We agree with Plaintiff that Defendant should produce and present Plaintiff with a copy of the policy immediately. Defendant has already had significant time to comply with this request. With respect to Request for Documents 6, 7 and 8, Defendant objects that these documents are already in Plaintiff's possession, and that the requests are "unduly burdensome and meant solely to harass Defendant." (Doc. No. 14 ¶¶ 26-31.) We disagree. It would not be difficult for Defendant to produce the documents that it provided to Plaintiff during the application process, and after the policy was purchased. In addition, these documents are certainly relevant here. Plaintiff's claim is based on the fact that "Allstate failed to inform [him] of his rights and obligations under the policy. This failure resulted from not providing a copy of the Policy and not otherwise informing him that he would forfeit insurance coverage if he was not residing at the property." (Doc. No. 13 at 8.) These documents go to the heart of Plaintiff's claim.
Finally, Plaintiff contends that Defendant has failed to verify its answers to interrogatories pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 33 states in relevant part, "[t]he answers are to be signed by the person making them, and the objections signed by the attorney making them." FED. R. CIV. P. 33(b)(2). Obviously, the parties must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 3rd day of June, 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiff Raasan Bell's Motion to Compel More Complete Answers to Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (Doc. No. 13), and all documents in support thereof, and in opposition thereto, it is ORDERED that:1. Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part.
2. Defendant is instructed to fully and completely respond to Interrogatories 4, 5, 6 and 7, and Request for Documents 4 and 23. If full and complete responses cannot be made because no such materials exist, Defendant shall certify the non-existence of such materials, in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(b)(2).
3. Defendant is instructed to comply with Requests for Documents 3 and 5, to the extent that Defendant shall produce claims manuals, policy manuals, etc. that were given to the employees who had some involvement with Plaintiff, Plaintiff's policy, and Plaintiff's claim.
4. Defendant is instructed to comply Request for Documents 10 and 11, to the extent that these financial records have been made public. Defendant need not comply with Interrogatory 14.
5. Defendant shall produce documents as requested in Request for Documents 2, 6, 7 and 8.
IT IS SO ORDERED.