United States District Court, D. New Mexico
DEVI MARIA SCHMIDT, as Limited Guardian of JOHN CARRILLO, an incapacitated person, KAREN CARRILLO, JOHN CARRILLO, JR., and ASHLEY CARRILLO, Plaintiffs,
ANTHONY SHIFFLETT, NEW BERN TRANSPORT CORPORATION, a foreign profit corporation, PEPSICO, INC., a foreign profit corporation, and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR
Fashing United States Magistrate Judge
MATTER comes before the Court on plaintiffs Devi Maria
Schmidt, John Carrillo, Karen Carrillo, John Carrillo, Jr.,
and Ashley Carrillo's Motion to Compel Discovery and for
Sanctions, filed May 30, 2019. Doc. 83. Defendants filed
their response on June 28, 2019. Doc. 103. Plaintiffs filed
their reply on July 8, 2019. Doc. 104. Having read the
parties' submissions and reviewed the relevant law, the
Court finds the motion is well taken and will GRANT it.
Disclosure of Entire Insurance Policy
their motion, plaintiffs request that the Court compel
defendants to produce all insurance policies, including the
declarations pages,  that are applicable to this case pursuant
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and plaintiffs'
discovery requests. Doc. 83 at 4. Defendants already have
produced the declarations pages, which they contend are
sufficient under the circumstances of this case. Doc. 103 at
1. Plaintiffs initially agreed that providing the dec pages
was sufficient. Id. Now, however, plaintiffs believe
that the full insurance policies will “further impugn
Defendant PepsiCo as a proper party defendant at interest to
this case.” Doc. 104 at 3. Defendants did not object to
plaintiffs' discovery requests to produce the entire
insurance policy in their response to plaintiffs'
discovery requests. Doc. 83-2. Moreover, defendants concede
that “if there is an issue about coverage or a
reservation of rights, the entire policy should be produced,
” and they recognize the mandatory nature of disclosing
the entire policy. Doc. 103 at 2.
Rule 26 and the governing case law require disclosure of the
entire insurance policy. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26
requires that as an initial disclosure a party produce
“for inspection and copying as under Rule 34, any
insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be
liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the
action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to
satisfy the judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iv).
The rule does not limit the disclosure to the dec pages, and
the defendants have not provided any explanation why the
entire policy should not be disclosed. Further, the
disclosure of the dec pages generally is insufficient to
satisfy a party's obligation under Rule 26. See
Henderson v. Zurn Indus., Inc., 131 F.R.D. 560, 563
(S.D. Ind. 1990); Garcia v. Techtronic Indus. N. Am.,
Inc., No. 2:13-CV-05884 MCA, 2015 WL 1880544, at *4
(D.N.J. Apr. 22, 2015).
both Rule 26 and case law require the disclosure of the
entire insurance policy, not just the declarations pages, and
because defendants did not object to the disclosure of the
entire insurance policy, the Court grants the motion with
regard to disclosure of the entire policy.
Rule 37 Sanctions
motion to compel is granted, the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure require the Court to pay the movant's
reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion unless the
moving failed to make a good faith effort to obtain the
discovery without court action, the nondisclosure or
objection was substantially justified, or other circumstances
make an award unjust. Fed.R.Civ.P. 37 (a)(5)(A)(i-iii). Here,
the motion to compel is granted and there are no exceptions
that make an award of sanctions unjust. Accordingly, the
Court grants plaintiffs' request for sanctions.
THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion to Compel
Discovery and for Sanctions (Doc. 83) is GRANTED.
will produce all insurance policies and declarations pages
applicable to this case no later than Tuesday, August 20,
will submit a cost bill for the reasonable expenses incurred
in making this motion no later than August 20, 2019, and
defendants will file any objections to the reasonableness of
plaintiffs' requested fees no later than August 27, 2019,
absent a request showing good cause for an extension.