Volino v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

What the document is

The document is a letter from the plaintiffs requesting discovery relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37, together with Judge Schofield’s direction that the defendants respond. The text does not contain a ruling granting or denying the plaintiffs’ requests.

Plaintiffs’ requests

The plaintiffs asked the court to compel the deposition of Wen Tan, limited to three hours, and to allow them to reopen the deposition of the defendants’ expert, Mare Spizzirri.

Discovery dispute

Progressive hired Spizzirri to design and oversee a survey concerning whether used-car dealerships negotiate below advertised prices. The plaintiffs argued that the survey was intended to support Progressive’s position that applying a projected sold adjustment to comparable-vehicle prices was appropriate.

Before Spizzirri’s deposition, the defendants produced a document called the “Progressive Casualty Summary Worksheet.” According to the plaintiffs, the worksheet included only a limited portion of the survey information and did not explain important details about the questions, respondents, or purported negotiations. The plaintiffs also stated that Spizzirri testified that he did not know whether certain questions had been asked or what the answers were.

After the court intervened in discovery involving the survey contractor, the defendants produced fuller survey information and related communications. The plaintiffs argued that these materials conflicted with the earlier summary and undermined Spizzirri’s opinions. They also said the materials showed that the survey interviewers told dealerships that the potential buyer would trade in a vehicle and finance the purchase—circumstances the plaintiffs’ experts had identified as reasons a sale might occur below the listed price but that, according to the plaintiffs, did not reflect actual cash market value.

The plaintiffs further stated that the survey contractor testified she had provided the full results to B. Riley, where Tan worked under Spizzirri’s direct supervision and control. The plaintiffs argued that Tan could provide information about the survey data, communications, and any decision to delete or withhold information. They also argued that Spizzirri should be questioned about the newly produced materials.

Court’s action

Judge Schofield ordered the defendants to file a responsive letter, limited to three pages, by October 25, 2022. The document does not state whether the court granted, denied, or otherwise resolved the request to depose Tan or reopen Spizzirri’s deposition.