Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Glick et al, No. 3:2019cv03138 - Document 39 (C.D. Ill. 2020)
Court Description: OPINION: Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company's Motion for Sanctions (d/e 30 ) is DENIED with leave to refile. (SEE WRITTEN OPINION.) Entered by Magistrate Judge Tom Schanzle-Haskins on 9/25/2020. (GL, ilcd)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Glick et al Doc. 39 E-FILED Friday, 25 September, 2020 05:33:46 PM Clerk, U.S. District Court, ILCD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS SPRINGFIELD DIVISION LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. KELLIE M. GLICK and KACI CLAYTON, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 19-cv-3138 OPINION TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s (Liberty) Motion for Sanctions (d/e 30) (Motion) is DENIED with leave to refile. Liberty asks for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2) for Defendant Glick’s failure to comply with this Court’s discovery order, entered by Text Order dated March 31, 2020. Defendants have not responded and so are deemed to have no opposition to the Motion. Local Rule 7.1(B)(2). Liberty’s sanction request, however, is too vague to grant. The Court had ordered Glick to respond in full to Liberty’s discovery interrogatories and requests to produce. Text Order entered March 31, 2020. Liberty Page 1 of 3 Dockets.Justia.com states in the Motion that Glick failed to comply with the Order. Liberty asks for the following relief as a sanction for Glick’s failure to comply with this Court’s discovery order: Liberty also requests that this Court enter an order sanctioning Glick pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A) and ordering that the matters embraced in Liberty’s First Set of Interrogatories to Kellie Glick, and First Set of Requests for Production to Kellie Glick be taken as established for purposes of this action. Motion, at 5. Liberty’s interrogatories and requests to produce “embrace” many “matters,” but do not assert any facts or conclusions of law that would be established in a trial; the interrogatories only ask questions and the requests to produce only ask for documents. See Motion, Exhibits C and G, Liberty First Set of Requests for Production and Liberty’s First Set of Interrogatories. The Court, therefore, cannot determine what “matters” Liberty wishes to be “established for purposes of this action.” As a result, this Court cannot provide the relief requested. The Court grants Liberty leave to refile the Motion to state its requested sanction more clearly. The Court further notes that Defendant Glick provided some information in response to Liberty’s interrogatories. See Motion, Exhibit F, Glick Response to Interrogatories. The Court will consider that response in fashioning any sanction. Page 2 of 3 THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company’s Motion for Sanctions (d/e 30) is DENIED with leave to refile. ENTER: September 25, 2020 s/ Tom Schanzle-Haskins TOM SCHANZLE-HASKINS UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Page 3 of 3
]]>
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.
