Starr Indemnity and Liability Company v. North American Risk Services, Inc.
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:20-cv-00546
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 37
In Starr Indemnity v. North American Risk Services, Judge Schofield denied NARS’s motion to compel as untimely because fact discovery ended November 6, 2020.
Starr Indemnity & Liability Company and North American Risk Services, Inc.; the order denied NARS’s request to compel additional interrogatory responses from Starr.
What happened
Starr Indemnity & Liability Company v. North American Risk Services, Inc. involved North American Risk Services’ request for more complete answers to its contention interrogatories, which asked Starr to explain its claims about reservation-of-rights letters, causation, and damages.
NARS argued that Starr’s answers were incomplete and that Starr improperly refused to answer several interrogatories. Starr maintained that its responses were sufficient and that some requests sought facts beyond what Local Rule 33.3(c) permits in contention interrogatories.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield treated NARS’s November 25, 2020, pre-motion letter as a motion to compel and denied it as untimely because the deadline to complete fact discovery was November 6, 2020.
The detailed version
- Starr Indemnity and Liability Company v. North American Risk Services, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-00546
- Lorna Schofield
- Nov. 30, 2020
Background
North American Risk Services, Inc. (NARS), the defendant, served Starr Indemnity & Liability Company, the plaintiff, with contention interrogatories under Local Civil Rule 33.3(c). The interrogatories asked Starr to explain how NARS’s alleged failure to timely send or update reservation-of-rights letters caused Starr damages in several underlying matters. They also sought information about the people or entities who should have received those letters, claimed defense costs and attorneys’ fees, and damages allegedly connected to NARS’s use of an independent adjuster.
Starr provided written responses on November 4, 2020. NARS contended that the responses were incomplete or nonresponsive. After the parties met and conferred on November 16, NARS sent Starr a list of its concerns. Starr sent an email response on November 23 and maintained that it would not formally supplement several answers. NARS then submitted a November 25, 2020, pre-motion letter requesting an order compelling Starr to provide complete responses before NARS’s expert disclosure.
Parties’ Positions
NARS argued that Starr had not adequately explained its theories about proximate cause, the timing and recipients of reservation-of-rights letters, or the identity and amount of its alleged damages. NARS also argued that the requested information was discoverable and that Starr’s refusal impaired NARS’s ability to defend the case and prepare expert testimony.
Starr’s responses stated, among other things, that uncertainty under South Carolina law about the effect of delayed reservation-of-rights letters caused Starr to cover claims. Starr also identified certain underlying matters and asserted that some interrogatories improperly sought facts rather than the contentions permitted by Local Rule 33.3(c). The opinion does not describe a merits ruling on these discovery disputes.
Ruling
Judge Lorna G. Schofield construed NARS’s November 25 pre-motion letter as a motion to compel and denied it as untimely. The court relied on the Third Amended Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, which set November 6, 2020, as the parties’ deadline to complete all fact discovery. The order did not decide whether Starr’s interrogatory responses were substantively complete or whether NARS was otherwise entitled to the requested information.
Read the full 37-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.