Allstate Insurance Company v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
1:16-cv-04161
N.D. Ill.Nov 15, 2017Background
- Allstate (plaintiff) sued Electrolux (defendant) for a dryer-caused fire; Wright Group provided an identified testifying expert, Michael Stoddard.
- Defendant served a Rule 45 subpoena on non-party Wright Group seeking, inter alia, billing/invoices for dryer storage and expert consulting, corporate ownership records, and compensation/bonus policies for fire analysts.
- Plaintiff moved to quash the subpoena and for a protective order; Wright Group separately moved to quash or for a protective order. Defendant opposed both motions.
- Defendant argued relevance based on alleged collective authorship of the expert report by Wright Group employees and repeated business between Wright Group and Allstate in similar cases, asserting potential expert/entity bias.
- The court found Plaintiff lacked Rule 45 standing to quash but could seek a protective order under Rule 26, exercised discretion to entertain Wright Group’s late motion, and evaluated relevance, burden, and proportionality for each disputed category.
- Court ordered limited production from Wright Group (billing/invoices for specified timeframes and any general compensation/bonus policies) and denied production of corporate ownership records.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to quash non-party subpoena | Plaintiff lacks standing under Rule 45 to challenge subpoena | Defendant: Plaintiff has no Rule 45 standing | Plaintiff lacks Rule 45 standing, but may seek Rule 26 protective order, so court considered merits |
| Timeliness of Wright Group’s motion to quash | Wright Group's late filing, but asked court to consider merits | Defendant argued motion untimely because filed after compliance date | Court exercised discretion to consider Wright Group's motion despite late filing |
| Relevance of billing/invoice records (storage and expert consulting) | Irrelevant/overbroad and unduly burdensome | Relevant to potential expert bias and prior business with Allstate; discoverable | Compelled limited production: storage billing for past year; invoices (2012–present) for expert consulting re: Electrolux dryers for Allstate; invoices (2012–present) for storage of Electrolux dryers for Allstate |
| Corporate ownership records | Irrelevant and publicly available | Defendant sought to probe entity ties/bias | Not required: corporate records need not be produced (publicly available) |
| Compensation/bonus policies for Wright analysts | Seeks personal financial info and is harassing | Relevant to show institutional incentives/bias; non-personal policies discoverable | Compelled production of general compensation/bonus policies, if they exist; not personal financial records |
Key Cases Cited
- Global Material Techs., Inc. v. Dazheng Metal Fibre Co., Ltd., 133 F. Supp. 3d 1079 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (party moving for protective order bears burden to show good cause)
- Parker v. Four Seasons Hotels, Ltd., 291 F.R.D. 181 (N.D. Ill. 2013) (party generally lacks Rule 45 standing to quash third-party subpoena)
- Nw. Mem'l Hosp. v. Ashcroft, 362 F.3d 923 (7th Cir. 2004) (undue-burden balancing for subpoenas; production burden must not exceed benefit)
- Griffin v. Foley, 542 F.3d 209 (7th Cir. 2008) (district court discretion to quash or modify subpoenas)
- Behler v. Hanlon, 199 F.R.D. 553 (D. Md. 2001) (expert compensation and related income are discoverable to explore bias)