First American Title Insurance et al v. Northwest Title Insurance Agency et al, No. 2:2015cv00229 - Document 199 (D. Utah 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 108 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 5/20/16 (alt)

Download PDF
First American Title Insurance et al v. Northwest Title Insurance Agency et al Doc. 199 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, LLC, MEMORANDUM DECISION Case No. 2:15-cv-00229-DN-PMW Plaintiffs, District Judge David Nuffer v. NORTHWEST TITLE INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, et al. Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner Defendants. District Judge David Nuffer referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Judge Nuffer ordered the parties to follow the Short Form Discovery Motion Procedure.2 Before the court is Defendant Kristi Carrell’s “Short Form Discovery Motion Compelling Complete Answers to Kristi Carrell’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents and Things.”3 Defendant Carrell seeks an order compelling FATCO to “identify all individuals or entities that were shown copies of the Complaint in this matter by Mark Webber or any other FATCO employee,” as well as “all FATCO customers or potential customers who were provided information about the claims in this lawsuit by any FATCO employee.”4 Defendant Carrell 1 Docket no. 27. 2 Docket no. 39. 3 Docket no. 108. 4 Docket no. 108-1 at 6 (Interrogatories nos. 1&2). Dockets.Justia.com states that the “interrogatories are relevant to the issue of offsets and go to the bona fides of the Complaint.”5 Defendant Carrell’s motion to compel6 is DENIED. The information sought appears wholly irrelevant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Moreover, the requested discovery is not “proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, . . . the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id. The court declines to impose sanctions on Defendant Carrell at this time. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 20th day of May, 2016. BY THE COURT: PAUL M. WARNER United States Magistrate Judge 5 Docket no. 108. 6 Docket no. 108. 2

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.