In D'Aprile v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of Am., Download D'Aprile v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am. (M.D. Fla. Case No. 2.09cv270, Order of U.S.M.J. filed September 24, 2010) PUBLIC ACCESS also published as 2010 WL 3788271 (M.D. Fla. September 24, 2010)(Westlaw subscription required to access Westlaw), a United States Magistrate Judge confronted Discovery requests in a Breach of Contract Action. The Defendant is a Disability Insurance Company. The Plaintiff is an Attorney seeking Disability Income Insurance Coverage under a Policy issued by the Defendant to her former Law Firm.
In this case, the Magistrate Judge ordered the Plaintiff to produce what can accurately be described only as volumes of discovery. The Magistrate Judge largely overruled objections and granted the Insurance Company's Motion to Compel paragraphs of Requests for Production and Interrogatories. Production was denied where the Plaintiff previously produced Discovery. Reading this decision for the voluminous Discovery rulings is instructive.
So, too, is the Magistrate Judge's following ruling denying Defendant Discovery. Defendant requested production of the following documents:
Request Number 7: All trust records, ledgers and bank statements for the period of January 2002 through the present.
D'Aprile v. Unum Life Insurance Co. of Am., 2010 WL 3788271 at *4. [Boldfaced italics in original.] After granting much Discovery which overlapped with the subject of this Request for Production, the Magistrate Judge pointed out that the Defendant itself "points out in its Brief that the party seeking discovery of confidential information must make a showing of necessity which outweighs the countervailing interest in maintaining the confidentiality of such information." Id. at *4. The Magistrate Judge recognized that the Florida Bar requires protection of trust information "such as the identity of a client and fees paid by that client." Florida Lawyers are required by the Florida Bar to exert themselves to keep such trust information confidential.
The Magistrate Judge ruled in this Case that since so much Discovery on the same subject had already been requested and ordered, the Defendant had not shown the requisite "necessity" to outweigh the Florida Bar's requirement that the Plaintiff Lawyer maintain the confidentiality of such trust information in particular. Id.
The decision was by no means finally decided, however. The ruling in this Case went on to point out that the Plaintiff was not complying with Defendant's Discovery in this Case quickly enough. The ruling invoked the "Parties'" obligation to act in Good Faith in Discovery in this Case:
The Parties are reminded that they must act in good faith and provide documents and responses to the other side in a timely manner. The Court is particularly troubled that Plaintiff's counsel has failed to provide the Defendant with tax documents that the Court ordered be produced in its July 21, 2010 Order.... If the Court sees that this type of behavior continues, the Parties are warned that sanctions could be imposed.
Id. at *6.
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments