Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company v. Arbormax Tree Service, LLC, 5:16-cv-00662

Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company sued multiple defendants after a motor-vehicle accident; Michael Barlow (individually and as administrator of Michelle Barlow's estate) moved to compel documents from plaintiff produced in response to a subpoena.
The subpoena mainly sought (1) Progressive’s liability claim file for Timothy Robbins and (2) Progressive’s coverage file for Arbormax Tree Service, LLC.
Plaintiff asserted the files were protected work product because they were prepared in anticipation of litigation.
Barlow also moved for two scheduling extensions (to respond to plaintiff's summary judgment and to file his own summary judgment motion) pending resolution of the motion to compel.
The magistrate judge denied the motion to compel (finding the files were prepared in anticipation of litigation and protected as work product, and Barlow showed neither substantial need nor undue hardship) but granted Barlow’s scheduling-extension motions on a showing of good cause and diligence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Progressive’s claim/coverage files are protected work product	Files were prepared in anticipation of litigation and thus privileged	Files are ordinary claim files discoverable absent work-product protection or a showing of substantial need	Denied motion to compel; files are work product and Barlow showed neither substantial need nor undue hardship
Whether deadline extensions should be granted pending the motion to compel	Opposed: motion to compel was tardy; additional material would not change summary-judgment outcome; extension would prejudice plaintiff (risk of state-court judgment)	Extension needed because production (if ordered) could affect summary-judgment filings; movant acted diligently and sought extensions before deadlines expired	Extensions allowed: court found good cause and diligence; set new filing dates (response by July 3, 2017; summary-judgment motion by July 12, 2017)

Suggs v. Whitaker, 152 F.3d 501 (M.D.N.C. 1993) (elements for work-product protection)
Ennis v. Anderson Trucking, 141 F.R.D. 258 (E.D.N.C. 1991) (work-product doctrine analysis)
Pete Rinaldi's Fast Foods v. Great American Ins., 123 F.R.D. 198 (M.D.N.C. 1988) (insurance claim files may be work product when litigation threatened)
Dilmar Oil Co. v. Federated Mut. Ins. Co., 986 F. Supp. 959 (D.S.C. 1997) (Rule 16(b)(4) “good cause” focuses on diligence)
Cook v. Howard, [citation="484 F. App'x 805"] (4th Cir. 2012) (discussion of good-cause/diligence standard under Rule 16)
Nourison Rug Corp. v. Parvizian, 535 F.3d 295 (4th Cir. 2008) (party seeking schedule modification bears burden to show good cause)
Forstmann v. Culp, 114 F.R.D. 83 (M.D.N.C. 1987) (scheduling orders are binding and require diligence)