Doty v. UNUM Life Insurance Company of America

Background

Unum argued in a joint letter brief that James R. Doty had failed to supplement deficient discovery responses and document production. Doty disagreed. The court resolved the issues on the papers.

Rulings on the discovery requests

RFP Nos. 1–74

The court granted Unum’s request that Doty clearly state whether he had produced all responsive, nonprivileged documents, whether any documents had been withheld, and what objections supported any withholding. The court also ordered Doty to promptly produce documents he had acknowledged missing from his earlier production.

RFP Nos. 24 and 27

The court granted Unum’s request for documents supporting Doty’s claim for “Brandt fees,” meaning attorney fees incurred to obtain enforcement of contracted insurance benefits in a related bad-faith claim. The court concluded that by claiming those fees, Doty had put the supporting information at issue and waived privilege that would otherwise prevent disclosure. Doty could redact irrelevant billing entries, including entries for time he was not seeking as contract damages.

RFP Nos. 33–35

The court denied these requests without prejudice. The requests appeared connected to Unum’s proposed counterclaim challenging Doty’s eligibility for an earlier Total Disability determination, while the operative complaint concerned a Residual Disability determination. The court stated that Unum could raise the requests again if it was allowed to amend its answer to add the counterclaim.

RFP Nos. 41–43

The court granted these requests and ordered Doty to produce all nonprivileged documents concerning actions, claims, or lawsuits filed against him by the California Medical Board between January 1, 2008, and the present. The court found the material relevant to the current claims and defenses because the period included the Residual Disability period and because recent California Medical Board proceedings could contain relevant information.

RFP Nos. 45–49 and 59

The court overruled Doty’s objections and denied his requests for clarification. The court found that Doty could meaningfully respond using his own understanding of the terms and phrases used in the requests.

RFP No. 53

This request sought documents concerning Doty’s position, employment, or job duties at Healthcube. Doty had stated that he did not know an entity by that name, while Unum pointed to his LinkedIn profile, which it said identified him as being on Healthcube’s board. Doty did not address that issue in the letter brief. The court denied the request. It stated that Doty’s answer could be questioned at deposition and that falsifying a discovery answer could lead to remedies, but it did not decide whether the answer was false.

RFP No. 60

The court overruled Doty’s objections to producing contracts with Penguin Random House concerning publishing or writing books, including Into the Magic Shop. The court found Doty’s ability to engage in activities such as writing books relevant to his disability claims. Doty could produce responsive materials under a protective order at his discretion.

RFP No. 62

This request sought communications between Doty and Laura Love concerning books he may have written. Doty had stated that he did not know anyone by that name, while Unum pointed to a passage in Into the Magic Shop referring to Laura Love as a close friend. Doty did not address the issue in the letter brief. The court denied the request. It noted possible explanations, including mistake, deception, fiction, a pseudonym, or a metaphor, but did not decide which explanation applied. The court stated that the answer could be explored at deposition and that falsifying a discovery answer could lead to remedies.

RFP Nos. 67–74

These requests sought personal financial records if Doty claimed emotional distress caused by financial hardship resulting from Unum’s conduct. Although Doty stated in the briefing that his emotional-distress claim did not stem from financial distress, his discovery responses were boilerplate. The court ordered him to amend the responses to certify that he was not claiming emotional distress caused by financial hardship resulting from Unum’s conduct.

RFP Nos. 61, 63, 64, and 66

These requests sought communications between Doty and his literary agents about books he may have written. The court overruled Doty’s relevance and proportionality objections, found the activity relevant to his disability, and instructed him to provide Unum with the responsive documents.

Disposition

The court granted some discovery requests, denied some requests, and denied RFP Nos. 33–35 without prejudice to Unum’s ability to raise them again after a decision on its motion to amend. It also overruled specified objections, denied requests for clarification, and ordered Doty to provide the required amended responses and documents.