Nelson v. American Modern Insurance Group

Background

The court addressed three discovery motions after an April 11, 2024 hearing. American Modern Insurance Group (AMIG) moved to compel Nelson’s responses to interrogatories and requests for documents. AMIG also moved to compel non-party Ann Olson to comply with a Rule 45 subpoena, including a deposition and document requests. Nelson moved to compel a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of an AMIG corporate representative.

AMIG’s Motion to Compel Discovery

The court granted AMIG’s motion. AMIG and the other defendant had served 11 interrogatories and eight requests for production. The requests sought information about Nelson’s alleged disability, previous vehicle ownership, contacts with insurance companies, damages, and other matters. The court found the requests relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.

The court found that Nelson’s responses were untimely, evasive, and required supplementation. For example, he answered an interrogatory about vehicles he owned or had owned by stating, “Plaintiff can only speculate.” He also said that he had already produced evidence concerning his visual impairment and related medical information, but AMIG reported that it had received no such documents. AMIG further reported that Nelson had produced only seven documents in the litigation, including only two email chains with defendants. The court concluded that Nelson had not fully answered the interrogatories or produced all responsive documents in his possession, custody, or control.

The court ordered Nelson, within 14 days, to produce all responsive documents and information in his possession, custody, or control and to supplement his responses to the Rule 33 interrogatories. It also ordered him to show cause why he should not pay AMIG $500 toward the expenses of bringing the motion within 90 days of the order. The order did not impose that payment immediately; it required Nelson to explain why the payment should not be ordered.

Rule 45 Subpoena to Ann Olson

The court granted AMIG’s motion to compel Olson’s compliance with the Rule 45 subpoena. Olson is Nelson’s mother and the trustee of a trust for his benefit. AMIG argued that her testimony was relevant because she had communicated with one of the defendants while Nelson was attempting to purchase insurance and, according to the vehicle title, owned the 1965 Corvette Nelson sought to insure.

The court found that the subpoena sought relevant information and was not unduly burdensome or expensive. It noted that counsel had been willing to make the deposition less burdensome in light of Olson’s reported medical limitations. Within 14 days after receiving service of the order, Olson must produce responsive documents and information in her possession, custody, or control and sit for an in-person deposition at a time the parties determine. The defendants must serve her with the order and update the court after service. The court warned that failure to comply without an adequate excuse could lead it to recommend that the District Judge hold Olson in contempt. The court did not consider Nelson’s arguments opposing the deposition because he does not represent Olson.

Nelson’s Motion to Compel

The court denied Nelson’s motion to compel an AMIG Rule 30(b)(6) deposition because he failed to satisfy the District of Minnesota’s meet-and-confer requirement. Nelson served the deposition notice at 6:02 p.m. on March 25, 2024, and filed his motion at 1:19 a.m. the following day. The court found that he had not attempted to confer with defense counsel before filing the motion and that his signed statement saying he had attempted to do so was false.

Disposition

The order granted AMIG’s Motion to Compel Discovery and granted AMIG’s Motion to Compel the Rule 45 Deposition. It denied Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel a Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition of AMIG. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty.