Wheeler v. American Family Home Insurance Company

Background

The court addressed several discovery disputes without oral argument. Discovery is the pretrial process through which parties obtain information and documents from each other and from third parties. American Family Home Insurance Company sought to depose, or question under oath, Yolanda George, the plaintiff’s former fiancée. The plaintiff’s attorney also represented George.

The insurer had attempted to serve George with a subpoena, including by serving her sister once and by trying to serve George as she left her home in her car. George described the attempt as frightening. Her attorney argued that the subpoena should be quashed, meaning canceled, because it had not been personally served on her.

The insurer also disputed a subpoena directed to the plaintiff’s music label, New Money. The plaintiff owned that company. In addition, the insurer challenged the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s answers to written questions and requests for documents concerning a music video filmed in September 2018, the storage of a car in 2018, and a March 2019 video that was never filmed. The insurer sought to inspect a computer and old cell phones and sought information related to an attorney-fee claim, including counsel’s billing records.

Rulings

For the subpoena to George, the court directed the parties to confer within one week and either develop a reasonable service plan or arrange for George to waive service. If they could not resolve the issue, the court directed them to file a new letter brief on May 4, 2021, and said it might schedule a case-management conference on May 6, 2021. The court did not otherwise rule on the subpoena in this order.

For the subpoena to New Money, the court denied the motion without prejudice to the parties’ refiling a joint letter. “Without prejudice” means the issue could be presented again. The court stated that responding to the dispute was mandatory and referred to its discovery-dispute procedures.

Regarding the plaintiff’s written responses, the court ordered him to exercise due diligence before responding. The court gave examples including contacting the body shop, speaking with people about the music videos, and reviewing text messages and emails. It ordered him to provide amended answers even if he could add no further detail. The supplemental responses were due four weeks from the date of the order. The court also ordered production of financial records under a protective order to address privacy concerns.

The court found that it could not order inspection of the computer and old cell phones because the plaintiff did not have them. It noted that the plaintiff still had an obligation to produce responsive information in his possession. The plaintiff was producing his retainer agreement. The court denied further discovery concerning attorney-fee records without prejudice to American Family’s raising the issue again with a stronger argument, including information about what the retainer agreement says.

Effect of the Order

This was a discovery order, not a decision on the underlying insurance dispute. It required additional cooperation and supplemental discovery responses, denied the New Money subpoena dispute without prejudice to refiling a joint letter, and denied further fee-related discovery without prejudice to a stronger request. The order was signed by Laurel Beeler, United States Magistrate Judge. The supplied case metadata lists Jeffrey White, but the opinion itself is signed by Laurel Beeler.