68 F.4th 677
1st Cir.2023Background
- Triple-S Management (TSM) and Triple-S Vida (TSV) are Puerto Rico insurers; in 2015 TSV acquired Atlantic Southern Insurance (ASI).
- Bonner was contacted in 2015 by individuals impersonating Triple-S employees (e.g., "Gamboa," "Zelaya," "Ruiz") who claimed she had >$8M in certificates and solicited management fees to release funds; she paid at least one fee and later claimed over $1M in damages after funds were not delivered.
- Bonner sued Triple-S alleging fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty (Texas law), and RICO; Triple-S answered denying it ever issued such certificates or employed the individuals and asserting Bonner was victim of an advanced-fee scam.
- Discovery: Bonner served interrogatories and RFPs; Triple-S timely served responses with objections; Bonner moved to compel and to extend discovery; the district court mostly denied the motion (some requests denied with prejudice, others denied without prejudice pending meet-and-confer) and Bonner did not refile after the meet-and-confer.
- District court granted summary judgment for Triple-S, relying on affidavits showing no Triple-S employees were involved and excluding much of Bonner’s proffered emails and call transcripts as inadmissible hearsay.
- Bonner appealed the denial of discovery and the grant of summary judgment; the First Circuit affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion in the discovery rulings and no genuine dispute of material fact on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waiver/timeliness of objections to discovery | Bonner: Triple-S waived objections by responding after deadline and failed to properly object | Triple-S: responses were served within 10 days of deadline and objections were timely; no prejudice shown | No waiver; district court did not abuse discretion — no prejudice from brief delay |
| Scope/relevance / overbreadth of RFPs and interrogatories | Bonner: requests are relevant and "reasonably calculated" to lead to admissible evidence | Triple-S: requests requested sweeping, untailored categories and were irrelevant or unduly burdensome | Court found many requests overbroad/not proportional under Rule 26(b) and properly denied compel |
| Meet-and-confer / Local Rule compliance | Bonner: (reconsideration) argued objections were waived and otherwise pressed discovery | Triple-S: Bonner failed to comply with Local Rule 26(b)/Rule 37(a)(1) meet-and-confer requirements | Denial without prejudice of certain requests was proper; Bonner did not satisfy meet-and-confer or refile, so no abuse of discretion |
| Summary judgment / admissibility of evidence (affidavits vs. emails/transcripts) | Bonner: her emails and transcribed calls show Triple-S employees were involved; district court improperly discounted her evidence | Triple-S: offered sworn affidavits based on personal knowledge showing records contained no such employees and denied contact; Bonner’s materials are largely hearsay and unauthenticated | Affidavits contained admissible, personal-knowledge portions; Bonner failed to authenticate or show an exception for hearsay; no genuine dispute — summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wells Real Estate Inv. Tr. II, Inc. v. Chardon/Hato Rey P'ship, S.E., 615 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2010) (discovery-ruling standard of review)
- Marx v. Kelly, Hart & Hallman, P.C., 929 F.2d 8 (1st Cir. 1991) (untimely objections may be waived but waiver is discretionary)
- Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978) (discovery has limits despite broad scope)
- Remexcel Managerial Consultants, Inc. v. Arlequin, 583 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2009) ("reasonably calculated" standard for discoverability)
- Rodríguez-Rivera v. Allscripts Healthcare Sols., Inc., 43 F.4th 150 (1st Cir. 2022) (Rule 56(c)(4) parsing affidavits; "scalpel, not butcher's knife")
- Perez v. Volvo Car Corp., 247 F.3d 303 (1st Cir. 2001) (personal knowledge requirement for affidavits)
- Greenburg v. Puerto Rico Maritime Shipping Auth., 835 F.2d 932 (1st Cir. 1987) (no credibility determinations at summary judgment)
- Vazquez v. Lopez-Rosario, 134 F.3d 28 (1st Cir. 1998) (inadmissible hearsay cannot be considered on summary judgment)