Weimar v. Geico Advantage Insurance Company, No. 2:2019cv02698 - Document 51 (W.D. Tenn. 2020)
Court Description: ORDER denying 41 Motion for Reconsideration, granting in part Motion to Clarify, and denying Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tu M. Pham on 3/4/2020. (nph)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
dentify’ the claims ‘by claim number,’ ‘describe in detail the data from the claim file,’ or ‘describe in detail why Plaintiff alleges the claim was mishandled,’ as required by . . . the Chancery Court’s ruling.” (ECF No. 20.) Geico is not free to take a new position in its motion for revision. Furthermore, if Geico’s interrogatory was actually as limited as it now asserts, this dispute would be moot. Weimar has provided Geico with a list of claims files Weimar believes were mishandled. Were this dispute actually a question of Weimar “identif[ing], from the review that he has already conducted, those claim files for which it contends a deductible was applied when it should not have been,” the original motion to compel and this motion for revision presumably would never have been brought. (ECF No. 41.) This dispute exists because Geico is asking for more than that. The motion for revision is DENIED. B. Motion for Clarification In the alternative, Geico asks “that this Court clarify its Order and state whether or not it intends for its Order to protect Plaintiff from the disclosures of the results of his review for the duration of this litigation, or, in the alternative, whether it intends that Plaintiff be protected from disclosing the results of this review until later.” (ECF No. 41.) - 9 - If Geico is asking if the court’s ruling was based on Weimar’s attorney work product objection, it was not. The court expressly declined to consider Weimar’s arguments about why the state court’s order should not have been granted, including his work product objection. The court’s ruling was based on the specific issues presented in the motion to compel and was not intended to address any future discovery disputes that might arise between the parties. There is one aspect of the court’s prior order that does need to be clarified. At the time of its order, the court was under the impression that Weimar’s list of mishandled claims files took the form of a sworn supplement to his interrogatory response. According to Geico’s reply to Weimar’s response to the motion for revision, this is not the case. (ECF No. 50.) The court thus CLARIFIES that Weimar’s list of mishandled claims should have taken the form of a sworn supplement to his interrogatory response. The court ORDERS that Weimar shall provide such a sworn supplement within five days of entry of this order. C. Motion for Sanctions Weimar argues that Geico should be sanctioned for filing this motion for reconsideration under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(B) and Local Rule 7.3(c). In light of the fact this motion is at least partially successful, the court DENIES the motion for sanctions. III. CONCLUSION - 10 - For the reasons above, the motion for revision is DENIED, the motion to clarify is GRANTED IN PART, and the motion for sanctions is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/ Tu M. Pham TU M. PHAM United States Magistrate Judge March 4, 2020 Date - 11 -
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
