Tucker v. American International Group, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 35374
| D. Conn. | 2012Background
- Tucker sues her former employer’s insurers under an EPL policy seeking a $4 million judgment from Tucker I.
- Tucker served a Rule 45 subpoena on Marsh USA, Inc. (non-party insurer broker) for documents and electronic records related to Tucker’s claim.
- Marsh produced several hundred documents; emails involving Lucy Carter and Ricardo Venegas were incomplete or missing.
- Tucker and her counsel sought a further, Datatrack-led search of Marsh’s computer records to locate additional Carter-related emails.
- Marsh objected, arguing the proposed search was overly broad, burdensome, and not properly authorized by the subpoena; Marsh highlighted significant burden and confidentiality concerns for a non-party.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the inspection protocol is overly broad under Rule 26(b)(2)(C) | Tucker seeks emails relevant to Tucker’s claim to determine additional responsive documents and potential spoliation. | Marsh argues the protocol is overly broad, burdensome, and beyond the subpoena scope. | Denied; protocol overly broad and burdensome. |
| Whether Marsh should be compelled to permit Datatrack’s inspection of its records under Rule 45 | Datatrack inspection is reasonably calculated to locate missing Carter emails and verify discovery. | Non-party burden and confidentiality concerns; no binding agreement for Datatrack inspection. | Denied; substantial burden on Marsh outweighs likely benefit. |
| Whether the search for speculative Carter-related emails is justified given prior discovery | Additional Carter emails could be critical for Tucker’s claims and notice issues. | Emails likely speculative; already obtained substantial discovery from defendants and JRC. | Denied; not good cause to pursue speculative, duplicative searches. |
| Whether Tucker has already obtained adequate discovery from other sources | Extensive discovery via depositions and prior productions suffices. | Discovery already obtained from defendants and JRC renders further non-party search duplicative. | Denied; sufficient alternative sources exist. |
| Whether Marsh, as a non-party, bears significant burden to comply | Non-party burden is appropriate if necessary to obtain relevant evidence. | Non-party burden should be protected; substantial cost and confidentiality concerns. | Denied; court weighed burden against benefits and found burden excessive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cusumano v. Microsoft Corp., 162 F.3d 708 (1st Cir. 1998) (collection of cases; limits on search scope for discovery from parties and non-parties)
- Jackson v. AFSCME Local 196, 246 F.R.D. 410 (D. Conn. 2007) (protect non-parties from significant expense in discovery)
- John B. v. Goetz, 531 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 2008) (privacy/confidentiality concerns in electronic discovery)
- Haworth, Inc. v. Herman Miller, Inc., 998 F.2d 975 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (non-party burden considerations in discovery)
- U.S. v. IBM Corp., 83 F.R.D. 97 (S.D.N.Y. 1979) (non-party consideration in discovery and access)