Rockwell v. Progressive Insurance
4:23-cv-00022
| D. Alaska | May 12, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Lisa Rockwell, alleges Progressive Insurance underpaid insurance claims after her two travel trailers were destroyed by Hurricane Ian in 2022, leading to credit and financial harm.
- Rockwell self-represented; the lawsuit was initially filed in Alaska state court and removed to federal court on diversity grounds.
- Rockwell claims Progressive undervalued the replacement of the trailers and their contents and mishandled the policy cancellation, causing additional financial and credit-related damages.
- Core claims include breach of contract, negligence, and bad faith; Rockwell seeks substantial damages for underpayment and lost credit opportunities.
- Multiple discovery disputes arose, primarily over Progressive's requests for documents related to Rockwell’s credit, loans, and financial loss calculations—requests which Rockwell largely resisted.
- The court's order resolves various pending discovery motions, including motions to compel, for protective orders, and motions to strike.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must Rockwell disclose her and her husband's credit/financial info? | Rockwell argued her and spouse’s credit info is irrelevant, overly burdensome, and confidential. | Progressive argued the info is relevant since Rockwell claimed credit-related damages. | Must disclose her own/joint debts, not husband’s separate info. |
| Sanctions for Rockwell failing to attend deposition? | Claimed abusive discovery, wanted advance questions, cited pending protective order. | Requested sanctions as no valid excuse for nonappearance. | Sanctions permitted; Progressive entitled to reasonable expense recovery. |
| Dismissal of Progressive’s witnesses/summary judgment for Rockwell? | Claimed defense witnesses supplied false or irrelevant info and factual issues settled. | Asserted Rockwell failed to present actual evidence or show no material disputes exist. | Denied—motion unsupported by evidence, factual issues remain. |
| Striking financial/property documents related to husband | Asserted documents irrelevant & prejudicial as property isn’t hers and not at issue. | Contended documents might be relevant to credit/damages claims. | Denied—judicial notice of documents stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pioche Mines Consol., Inc. v. Dolman, 333 F.2d 257 (9th Cir. 1964) (A party cannot excuse deposition attendance by filing motions without a court order; duty to appear remains)
- Myhre v. Seventh-Day Adventist Church Reform Movement Am. Union Int'l Missionary Soc., 298 F.R.D. 633 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (A party must furnish all available information in responding to discovery)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (Standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (Summary judgment only appropriate where no genuine dispute of material fact)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (Burden on movant to show no genuine issue for trial in summary judgment)