Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kokak LLC v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co.

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

September 17, 2019

KOKAK LLC d/b/a PROFESSIONAL VAULT STORAGE, Plaintiff,
v.
AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Andrew P. Rodovich United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter is before the court on the Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Plaintiff [DE 26], and the Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Untimely Response to Motion to Compel [DE 32] filed by the defendant, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, on May 28, 2019 and June 25, 2019. For the following reasons, the Motion to Compel Production of Documents from Plaintiff [DE 26] is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and the Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Untimely Response to Motion to Compel [DE 32] is DENIED.

         Background

         The plaintiff, Kokak, LLC d/b/a Professional Vault Storage, initiated this matter against the defendant, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, to compel appraisal and for breach of contract on April 27, 2018. On March 14, 2019, Auto-Owners issued a Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition and Subpoena Duces Tecum to Kokak intended to take the deposition of a Kokak representative. The notice and subpoena contained Exhibit B, which commanded production of documents at the deposition. On April 2, 2019 and April 22, 2019, Auto-Owners served amended Rule 30(b)(6) notices and subpoenas to Kokak rescheduling the date of the depositions. The amended notices and subpoenas contained the same Exhibit B as originally served on Kokak.

         The depositions of Kokak's Rule 30(b)(6) representatives, Joshua Milton and Frederick Leaf, were held on April 30, 2019. Kokak did not object to any of the deposition topics or the documents requested in Exhibit B prior to the depositions. However, Kokak appeared at the depositions without any documentation. On May 15, 2019, Auto-Owners sent correspondence to Kokak's counsel demanding that Kokak produce the documents requested in Exhibit B within 7 days. However, Kokak did not respond to the request.

         Auto-Owners has filed the instant motion requesting the court to compel Kokak to produce the documents responsive to the requests found in Exhibit B and for all reasonable expenses incurred in making the instant motion. Auto-Owners filed a separate Northern District of Indiana Local Rule 37-1 certification [DE 28] outlining the steps it took in attempting to resolve this discovery dispute in good faith. Kokak filed its response to the motion to compel on June 18, 2019. According to N.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(d)(2)(a), Kokak's response was due on June 11, 2019. Auto-Owners has filed a motion requesting that Kokak's untimely response be stricken. Kokak filed a response to the motion to strike on July 8, 2019, and Auto-Owners filed a reply on July 15, 2019.

         Discussion

         The court first will address Auto-Owners' motion to strike Kokak's untimely response to the motion to compel. Auto-Owners filed the motion to compel on May 28, 2019. Pursuant to N.D. Ind. L.R. 7-1(d)(2)(a), a party must file any response brief to a motion within 14 days after the motion is served. Kokak, without seeking an extension, filed its response on June 18, 2019. Motions to strike generally are disfavored, although they may be granted if they remove unnecessary clutter from a case and expedite matters, rather than delay them. Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir. 1989); Doe v. Brimfield Grade School, 552 F.Supp.2d 816, 825 (C.D. Ill. 2008). The decision whether to strike is within the discretion of the court. Talbot v. Robert Matthews Distrib. Co., 961 F.2d 654, 665 (7th Cir. 1992).

         Kokak has indicated that it delayed filing a response to the motion to compel so that the responsive documents could be provided to Auto-Owners and the affidavits of its representatives could be filed with the response. Kokak contends that Auto-Owners was not prejudiced by its late filing and that it has provided all responsive documents in its possession. Kokak has not offered any reason for its delay in producing the requested documents nor has it provided sufficient justification for failing to seek an extension from the court. However, the court finds that failing to consider the merits of the motion to compel will only delay this case further. Accordingly, the Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Untimely Response to Motion to Compel [DE 32] is DENIED.

         Next, the court will address Kokak's argument that Auto-Owners did not comply with N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1. “A party filing any discovery motion must file a separate certification that the party has conferred in good faith or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the matter raised in the motion without court action.” N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1(a). The certification must include the date, time, and place of any conference or attempted conference and the names of any participating parties. N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1(a)(1) and (2). The court may deny any motion that failed to include the required certification. N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1(b).

         Kokak's contention that Auto-Owners did not file a “separate certification” is without merit. In accordance with N.D. Ind. L.R. 37-1, Auto-Owners filed a certification outlining its efforts in obtaining the outstanding discovery. However, the court agrees with Kokak that one letter sent on May 15, 2019 was not sufficient to meet the requirements of Local Rule 37-1. See Thompson v. City of Fort Wayne, 2013 WL 2898275, at *1 (N.D. Ind. 2013) (“But a single email sent to counsel, and that counsel's response, falls utterly short of a good faith attempt at a conference.”); see also Forest River Housing, Inc. v. Patriot Homes, Inc., 2007 WL 1376289, at *2 (N.D. Ind. 2007) (“[T]wo emails . . . do not constitute meaningful discussion or serious negotiations to resolve the disputed discovery issue.”). Despite Auto-Owners failure to meet the requirements of Local Rule 37-1, the court will address the underlying issues rather than denying Auto-Owners' motion based on a procedural shortcoming and simply delay a resolution of this dispute. See Felling v. Knight, 2001 WL 1782361, at *1 (S.D. Ind. 2001) (“[T]he briefs leave little doubt the parties will not reach mutual agreement on the issues raised. Therefore, the court will address the underlying issues rather than deny Knight's motion solely on the basis of a procedural shortcoming. To hold otherwise would do little other than delay resolution of these issues . . . ”).

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, the scope of discovery is “any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense . . . Relevant information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Relevancy is “construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978) (citing Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501 (1947)).

         A party may seek an order to compel discovery when an opposing party fails to respond to discovery requests or has provided evasive or incomplete responses. See Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a). The burden “rests upon the objecting party to show why a particular discovery request is improper.” Gregg v. Local 305 Ibew, 2009 WL 1325103, at *8 (N.D. Ind. May 13, 2009) (citation omitted). The objecting party must show with specificity that the request is improper. Cunningham v. Smithkline Beecham, 255 F.R.D. 474, 478 (N.D. Ind. 2009) (citation omitted). That burden cannot be met by “a reflexive invocation of the same baseless, often abused litany that the requested discovery is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome or that it is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Cunningham, 255 F.R.D. at 478 (internal quotations and citations omitted). Rather, the court, under its broad discretion, considers “the totality of the circumstances, weighing the value of material sought against the burden of providing it, and taking into account society's interest in furthering the truth-seeking function in the particular case before the court.” Berning v. UAW Local 2209, 242 F.R.D. 510, 512 (N.D. Ind. 2007) (internal quotations and citations omitted); see Hunt v. DaVita, Inc., 680 F.3d 775, 780 (7th Cir. 2012) (explaining that the district court has broad discretion in supervising discovery).

         Auto-Owners has requested that the court compel Kokak to produce all of the documents in its possession, custody, or control requested in the Rider included as Exhibit B in Auto-Owners' Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(2) states that “[t]he notice to a party deponent may be accompanied by a request under Rule 34 to produce documents and tangible things at the deposition.” Auto-Owners' Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.