Clifford et al v. Church Mutual Insurance Company, No. 2:2013cv00853 - Document 55 (S.D. Ohio 2014)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER denying 50 Motion Motion for Informal Discovery Telephone Conference With Magistrate Judge King. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 7/30/2014. (pes1)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION JACQUIN CLIFFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Civil Action 2:13-cv-853 Judge Watson Magistrate Judge King CHURCH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that insurance policies issued by defendant cover an injury or loss caused by defendant s alleged insured, Lonnie J. Aleshire, Jr., as reflected in a money judgment obtain by plaintiffs against Mr. Aleshire. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion for Informal Discovery Telephone Conference With Magistrate Judge King, ECF 50 ( Plaintiffs Motion ). Plaintiffs represent that the parties have reached impasse regarding defendant s responses to plaintiffs third request for production of documents; plaintiffs believe that a conference with this Court would hopefully clarify the responsibilities of the parties. Id. at 2-3 (citing Declaration of Chelsea L. Berger, attached thereto). Although defendant has not responded to Plaintiffs Motion, (the deadline for responding has not yet passed), plaintiffs attach correspondence from defense counsel indicating that defendant does not believe that a dispute exists and disagree that a 1 conference with the Court is warranted. Id. at 2 (citing Exhibit 4, attached thereto). By way of background, plaintiffs served their third request for production of documents on June 2, 2014. Id. at 2 (citing ECF 46-2, Plaintiffs Third Request for Production of Documents to Defendant Church Mutual Insurance Company). In a response dated June 23, 2014, defendant characterized that document request No. 661 as hopeless, overbroad and vague and impossible to answer. Exhibits 2, 3 and 4, attached thereto). Id. at 2-3 (citing Plaintiffs observed that this response did not indicate that there were no documents in existence that were responsive to Request 66. attached thereto). Id. at 3 (citing Exhibit 3, After plaintiffs advised defendant of perceived deficiencies in defendant s responses, defendant served a whole new version of responses to Plaintiff s Third Request, indicat[ing] that the wrong version had allegedly been sent prior. Id. at 2. Defendant s revised response to document request No. 66 objects to the request as, inter alia, hopelessly vague and ambiguous and hopelessly overbroad, but goes on to represent that Church Mutual does not have any documents that address or purport to address any ambiguous language in the insurance policies issued by Church Mutual to Licking Baptist Church. ECF 48, pp. 7-8. See also Exhibit 4, PAGEID #:927 attached to Plaintiff s Motion (email from defense counsel dated July 24, 2014, stating, inter alia, that Church Mutual does not have documents responsive to Request 66. ). 1 Document request no. 66 seeks copies of any and all notes, correspondence, memoranda, or other documents pertaining to any area(s) of ambiguity listed above in the [insurance] policies from 2000 to 2007. ECF 48, p. 7. 2 Plaintiff believes that there is a high likelihood that defendant either did not diligently search for documents responsive to document request No. 66 or is withholding responsive documents because (1) defendant s earlier objected to that document request No. 66 as impossible to answer ; and (2) defendant s original response did not indicate that there were no documents in existence that were responsive to Request 66. This Court disagrees. Plaintiff s Motion, p. 3. Defense counsel has made the professional representation that no documents responsive to document request No. 66 exist. See ECF 48; Exhibit 4, attached to Plaintiffs Motion. Plaintiffs have offered no reason for the Court to conclude that defendant s counsel have failed to meet their obligations under Bratka v. Anheuser-Busch Co., 164 F.R.D. 448 (S.D. Ohio 1995). Under these circumstances, a discovery conference to clarify the responsibilities of the parties as they relate to plaintiffs document request No. 66 is unwarranted. WHEREUPON, Plaintiffs Motion for Informal Discovery Telephone Conference With Magistrate Judge King, ECF 50, is DENIED. July 30, 2014 s/Norah McCann King Norah McCann King United States Magistrate Judge 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.
