DALLAS (LN) — Senior U.S. District Judge Sidney A. Fitzwater granted in part and denied in part a motion to compel discovery in Paul Panza and Neely Tetley’s lawsuit against Travelers Personal Insurance Company, ruling that the insurer’s boilerplate objections and improper invocation of Rule 33(d) could not shield it from answering key contention interrogatories.
The plaintiffs, who allege state-law causes of action arising from Travelers’ underpayment of their insurance claim, moved to compel answers to Interrogatory Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, and 15, as well as document production and deposition dates. Travelers opposed the motions, arguing the requests were overbroad, irrelevant, or properly answered by referencing existing documents.
Fitzwater rejected Travelers’ argument that Rule 33(d) allowed it to answer Interrogatory No. 2—which asked whether conditions precedent to recovery were met—by pointing to its answer and defenses. The court noted that Travelers cited no authority treating a legal answer as a “business record” under the rule and declined to apply the provision to a contention interrogatory. However, the judge denied the motion to compel on this specific interrogatory, finding the information could be obtained from a more convenient source under Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(i).
The court, however, sided with the plaintiffs on Interrogatory No. 5, which asked Travelers to state whether it contended the plaintiffs failed to provide requested information and, if so, what information was withheld. Fitzwater held that this was a permissible contention interrogatory relevant to the claims at issue and that Travelers’ “largely boilerplate objections” were insufficient to defeat the motion. The judge ordered Travelers to respond to the extent it was able and supplement as required.
Interrogatory No. 6, seeking the names and titles of persons who handled the claim, also survived Travelers’ objections. The court found the request confined to individuals who performed work in connection with the policy or claim and was relevant to the case. Fitzwater rejected Travelers’ argument that its initial disclosures or document productions satisfied the request, noting the insurer failed to specifically identify the documents containing the responsive information as required by Rule 33(d).
Conversely, the court denied the motion to compel for Interrogatory Nos. 9 and 15, which asked for “each and every” reason for non-liability and a detailed statement of facts supporting any contributing cause of damages. Fitzwater held these contention interrogatories were overly broad and unduly burdensome, requiring a “laborious, time-consuming analysis” that outweighed their benefit.
On document requests, the court ordered Travelers to produce materials related to its claim handling guidelines, finding them relevant to potential bad faith claims. The judge narrowed Requests for Production Nos. 43, 44, and 45 to limit production to guidelines available when the claim was submitted and relevant to the type of loss at issue.
The court also compelled production of communications with third parties, including contractors and adjusters, rejecting Travelers’ proportionality objections. However, it allowed Travelers to withhold portions of its Investigative Services (TIS) files, finding the insurer met its burden to show those materials were prepared in anticipation of litigation and thus protected by work-product doctrine.
In a separate ruling, Fitzwater denied the plaintiffs’ motion to extend the deadline to produce an expert report for Brandon Allen. The plaintiffs argued the delay was caused by Travelers’ failure to produce prior claim files. The court found the delay resulted from plaintiffs’ counsel’s lack of diligence, citing an email from a paralegal provided by Travelers in which she admitted she had “dropped the ball on getting [Allen] all of the documents for him to prepare his report.”
Fitzwater emphasized that the “good cause” standard under Rule 16(b)(4) focuses on the diligence of the party seeking modification. The court noted that plaintiffs failed to explain why they did not file the motion to compel deadline passed and did not demonstrate that they could not reasonably have met the deadline despite their efforts.
The parties must meet and confer regarding the scope of remaining document requests, the privilege log, and deposition dates, filing a joint status report within 28 days.