Carr v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
312 F.R.D. 459
N.D. Tex.2015Background
- State Farm moved to compel Carr's discovery responses and his oral deposition.
- Carr seeks UM/UIM benefits under a State Farm auto policy and disputes State Farm’s obligation until damages are determined.
- State Farm contends recovery hinges on entitlement and a judgment establishing damages, delaying payment.
- Plaintiff provided partial discovery responses with promises to supplement and scheduled but did not attend a noticed deposition.
- Court-ordered discovery deadlines: completion by Dec 18, 2015; trial set for Apr 2016.
- Court granted motion to compel, applying amended Rule 26 proportionality standards and addressing burdens, objections, and potential sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deposition nonappearance sanction | Carr absent; argues no valid excuse. | State Farm requires deposition and sanctions for failure to appear. | Granted; Carr must appear for deposition before Dec 18, 2015. |
| Requirement to supplement responses | Promised to supplement but failed to timely do so. | Responses must be fully supplemented; timely compliance essential. | Ordered full supplementation by Dec 14, 2015. |
| Physician-patient privilege objections | Interrogatories 6-12 shielded by privilege. | Privilege does not justify withholding relevant information when exception applies; information discovery permitted. | Objections waived; interrogatories 6-12 must be fully answered; confidentiality agreement to be negotiated. |
| Other Production requests (10,11,14,18) | Objections render requests non-discoverable. | Requests are relevant for offsets and other information under the policy. | Objections waived; must respond and produce by Dec 14, 2015. |
Key Cases Cited
- McLeod, Alexander, Powel & Apffel, P.C. v. Quarles, 894 F.2d 1482 (5th Cir. 1990) (objection-specific burden required to resist discovery)
- Terra Int'l v. Terra, 134 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. 1998) (protective orders require particularized showing of need)
- Landry v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, 901 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1990) (protective orders require good cause with specific fact showing)
- Crosby v. Louisiana Health Serv. & Indem. Co., 647 F.3d 258 (5th Cir. 2011) (need to limit discovery under proportionality factors)
- Murphy v. Deloitte & Touche Group Ins. Plan, 619 F.3d 1151 (10th Cir. 2010) (discovery proportionality limits apply)
- Heller v. City of Dallas, 303 F.R.D. 466 (N.D. Tex. 2014) (reinforces Rule 26(g) certification and burden on party seeking discovery)
- In re Santa Fe Int’l Corp., 272 F.3d 705 (5th Cir. 2001) (privilege exemptions in discovery context)