National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Commonwealth Insurance Company
- Willis
- 1:21-cv-08575
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In National Railroad Passenger v. Commonwealth Insurance, Judge Willis granted Amtrak’s request to depose an Underwriters witness about policy interpretation.
Amtrak may take the requested deposition of Martin Roberts, and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s must respond to that discovery ruling.
What happened
National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Commonwealth Insurance Company concerned Amtrak’s request to depose Martin Roberts, who headed the wordings department of the Liberty Syndicate associated with Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s.
Amtrak argued that Roberts’s testimony could be relevant because the department interprets policy language and the court had previously found the policy at issue ambiguous. Underwriters argued that Roberts was not involved when the policy was written and that his testimony was irrelevant.
Judge Jennifer E. Willis granted Amtrak’s request. She found that the deposition could lead to relevant information and that the burden of taking one additional deposition was minimal.
The detailed version
- National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Commonwealth Insurance Company · No. 1:21-cv-08575
- Willis
- Sept. 6, 2023
Background
Amtrak filed a letter motion seeking to compel the deposition of Martin Roberts. The opinion identifies Roberts as the head of the wordings department of the Liberty Syndicate with defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s. Underwriters opposed the request and asked the court for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
Amtrak argued that Roberts’s testimony was relevant because the wordings department is responsible for interpreting language in Underwriters’ policies. Amtrak also relied on the court’s earlier finding that the policy at issue was ambiguous, making interpretation relevant. Amtrak further argued that the burden of taking one additional deposition would be minimal.
Underwriters argued that Roberts’s testimony was irrelevant because he was not involved in underwriting the policy at issue and did not hold his position until years after the policy was drafted.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that discovery generally may cover any nonprivileged matter relevant to a claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. The party seeking discovery must first show the possibility that the requested discovery will lead to relevant evidence. The burden then shifts to the opposing party to show that the discovery is improper.
The court distinguished a prior decision cited by Underwriters, explaining that the circumstances there included a significant likelihood of harassment and no compelling reason for the deposition. Here, the court found those circumstances absent. Amtrak had also provided case law supporting its argument that later changes in terminology could provide relevant outside evidence about interpreting an insurance policy.
Ruling
The court found that Roberts’s deposition could lead to relevant information and that the burden of taking one additional deposition was minimal. It therefore GRANTED Amtrak’s request to compel the deposition. The clerk was requested to close the motion at Docket No. 114. Judge Jennifer E. Willis signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.