United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL (ECF NO.
A. Dooley, USDJ
procedural and factual nature of this coverage dispute is
well-known to all parties at this juncture. By motion to
compel, the Plaintiff challenges the adequacy of the
Defendant's answers to certain Interrogatories and
Requests for Production.
respect to the Interrogatories, the Plaintiff seeks an order
from the Court requiring the Defendant to identify within its
document production the specific documents from which the
answer to the Interrogatory might be gleaned. The Defendant
asserts that it has adequately complied with its obligations
under Rules 33. “Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
33(d), the responding party may answer an interrogatory by
producing business records if …: (1) the interrogating
party can determine the answer to the interrogatory by
‘examining, auditing, compiling, abstracting or
summarizing' the business records; (2) ‘the burden
of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially
the same for either party'; (3) the responding party
‘specifies the records that must be reviewed, in a
sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate
and identify them as readily as the responding party
could'; and, (4) the responding provides the
interrogating party with ‘a reasonable opportunity to
examine and audit the records and to make copies,
compilations, abstracts, or summaries.'”
Sadofsky v. Fiesta Prod., LLC, 252 F.R.D. 143, 147
(E.D.N.Y. 2008) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 33(d)). Rule 33(d)
shifts the burden of compiling the information and
ascertaining the answer to an Interrogatory from the
producing party to the interrogating party. Compagnie
Francaise d'Assurance Pour le Commerce Exterieur v.
Phillips Petroleum Co., 105 F.R.D. 16, 44 (S.D.N.Y.
1984).Here, the Plaintiff's Interrogatories are
extremely broad, so it should come as no surprise that the
documents which contain the responsive information are
located within a trove of documents. However, the Defendant
has identified with specificity the range of documents at
issue by Bates Number. This is sufficient. Phoenix Four,
Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., No. 05 Civ. 4837, 2006 WL
1517583, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2006) (holding that
plaintiff could answer defendant's interrogatory by
identifying by Bates numbers the documents already produced
and stating which Bates numbers corresponded to the relevant
documents). The Court further notes that the documents were
produced in a searchable format, rendering the information
equally accessible to the Plaintiff as it is to the
Defendant. See, e.g., Myer v. Miriam Collins-Palm Beach
Labs. Co., No. 85-3457, 1985 WL 3275, at *4 (E.D.Pa.
Oct. 24, 1985) (denying plaintiff's motion to compel
because defendant's offer to produce documents ranging
from 1980 to 1982 was an adequate response to the
interrogatories). With this in mind, the Court addresses each
interrogatory and request for production in turn.
motion to compel further information is GRANTED in
part. The Defendant shall indicate, for each
individual listed, the general subject matter of the
person's knowledge and information. If any individual
identified is not an employee or former employee of the
Defendant, contact information must be provided as well. The
motion to compel is otherwise denied.
motion to compel further information is
DENIED. The Interrogatory is overly broad;
contains multiple Interrogatories; and seeks information
outside the scope contemplated under Rule 26.
motion to compel is DENIED. Referral to the
previously produced underwriting file is adequate.
motion to compel is DENIED. The issue of
reserves and the setting of reserves is beyond the scope of
Rule 26 in this coverage dispute. See Sundance Corp. v.
Am. Bureau of Shipping, 1992 WL 75097, at *1 (S.D.N.Y.
Mar. 31, 1992) (Court determined that reserves were not
relevant, stating the insurer's “assessment or its
underwriter's assessment or its counsel's assessment
of exposure to liability in this or prior cases has nothing
to do with whether here there is liability.”); U.S.
Fire Ins. Co. v. City of Warren, 2012 WL 1454008, at *10
(E.D.Mich. April 26, 2012) (A reserve is “merely a
business judgment made by an insurance company to guard
against future loss” and does not reflect a legal
determination of the validity of an insured's
claim” and thus, neither its existence nor amount has
any bearing on the legal question of coverage).
motion to compel is DENIED. As indicated
above, the Defendant has adequately identified the records
from which the answer to the Interrogatory may be gleaned.