O'Rear v. Diaz
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:24-cv-01669
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In O'Rear v. Diaz, Judge Engelmayer ordered corporate defendants to respond to a discovery letter seeking insurance-policy disclosures.
S. O'Rear, Omnicom Group Inc., and Merkley + Partners Inc.; the order required the corporate defendants to respond to the discovery dispute but did not resolve it.
What happened
In O'Rear v. Diaz, S. O'Rear asked the court to address alleged failures by Omnicom Group Inc. and Merkley + Partners Inc. to disclose insurance policies connected to the lawsuit.
The letter says Omnicom produced an employment-practices liability policy with its retention amount and related defense-cost information redacted, while Merkley did not produce a general-liability policy under which it had reported O'Rear's claim. O'Rear argued that the federal discovery rules required production of these insurance agreements.
The court did not decide whether the defendants had to produce unredacted policies. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ordered the corporate defendants to respond by September 17, 2024, and stated that reply letters were not invited.
The detailed version
- O'Rear v. Diaz · No. 1:24-cv-01669
- Paul Engelmayer
- Sept. 12, 2024
Nature of the Document
The document is a letter from counsel for S. O'Rear raising a discovery dispute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(A)(iv), followed by the court's order setting a deadline for the corporate defendants' response. The court did not resolve the discovery dispute in this document.
Plaintiff's Position
O'Rear's counsel argued that Omnicom Group Inc. and Merkley + Partners Inc. were required to disclose insurance agreements under which an insurer might be responsible for all or part of a possible judgment.
According to the letter, the corporate defendants initially disclosed that O'Rear's claim would not reach the threshold of Omnicom's insurance policies. Omnicom later produced an employment-practices liability policy that disclosed a $10 million policy limit but redacted the retention amount and an amount concerning defense costs that could be incurred without the insurer's prior written consent. O'Rear sought an unredacted copy.
The letter also stated that Merkley had not disclosed a Zurich general-liability policy. Counsel asserted that Merkley had reported O'Rear's claim under that policy before the lawsuit, which counsel argued supported producing the policy.
Court Action
The court stated that the corporate defendants' response letter was due Tuesday, September 17, 2024, and that reply letters were not invited. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer signed the order as “SO ORDERED.” The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the request to compel production, decide whether any redactions were proper, or determine whether either policy covered O'Rear's claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.