Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation
1:16-mc-02778
E.D.N.YNov 23, 2016Background
- LMI (London Market Insurers) sued Amtrak seeking a declaratory judgment whether liability policies from 1972–1986 require insurers to reimburse Amtrak for environmental/asbestos costs; long-standing standstill agreement existed and was later terminated.
- Amtrak subpoenaed non-party Resolute Management, Inc. (RMI), which manages claims and discovery for many insurers, seeking claims files, underwriting/claims manuals, document-retention policies, and other documents.
- Insurers (through RMI) moved for a protective order arguing the subpoena was duplicative of prior Rule 34 productions, overbroad, unduly burdensome, and late in discovery.
- The magistrate judge previously limited discovery from insurers (May 16, 2016): claims/underwriting manuals limited to those discussing disputed policy provisions for the relevant coverage period; retention/destruction manuals required only where a particular policy was missing or incomplete.
- Court denied the protective order (Aug 9, 2016), encouraged a narrower subpoena, but after RMI produced almost no documents, Amtrak moved to compel enforcement of the subpoena.
- The court granted Amtrak’s motion in large part: RMI ordered to produce documents responsive to Requests #4–#20 (with the Court’s prior limitations applying), to produce document-retention/destruction manuals related to claims files, and to provide a privilege log; RMI may not withhold documents merely because they postdate a 2005 standstill agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Amtrak) | Defendant's Argument (RMI/Insurers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Relevance of RMI documents | Documents RMI holds are relevant and material to coverage/discovery and Amtrak needs them to verify completeness of prior productions | Documents are duplicative of prior Rule 34 productions by insurers; RMI already produced what it has on insurers' behalf | Court: RMI must produce; duplicative claim insufficient to quash subpoena; Amtrak showed legitimate need |
| 2. Burden/proportionality | Compliance is not unduly burdensome; RMI already directed prior collections for insurers | Enforcement imposes undue burden and comes late in discovery | Court: RMI failed to show undue burden; timeline is of RMI/insurers’ making; ordered production |
| 3. Scope/"all documents" requests | Broad categories are permissible if relevant and proportional; prior limits apply | Requests for “all documents” are overbroad and improper | Court: "All documents" not per se improper; objections overruled absent specific showing of burden; prior limiting rulings govern content |
| 4. Prior rulings on manuals and retention policies | Seeks manuals and retention policies insofar as they relate to disputed policies and missing/incomplete files; retention policies relevant given sparse claims-handling production | Amtrak is trying to relitigate and circumvent May 16 order limiting manuals; challenges production of all retention policies | Court: Prior May 16 limits apply to underwriting/claims manuals; but ordered broader disclosure of document retention/destruction policies from RMI related to claims files |
| 5. Documents postdating 2005 standstill | Post-2005 claims documents exist and must be produced; October 2016 agreement supersedes earlier confidentiality limitations | Insurers/RMI claimed a 2005 Standstill (and 2007 NDA) barred production of post-2005 settlement-related documents | Court: Declined to interpret old agreements; October 2016 Agreement controls and RMI may not withhold documents solely because they postdate 2005; ordered production (including supplemental productions) |
| 6. Privilege logs | Entitled to privilege identification for documents withheld and a detailed log for materials not previously covered by insurers’ Rule 34 responses | RMI resists producing another privilege log, says insurers’ logs suffice | Court: If RMI’s privilege claims mirror an insurer’s prior log, it may rely on that entry; otherwise RMI must prepare a detailed privilege log for documents uniquely withheld under the subpoena |
Key Cases Cited
- Champion Int’l Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 129 F. R. D. 63 (S.D.N.Y. 1990) (limits discovery of claims/underwriting manuals to those discussing disputed policy provisions)