United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana
LEONARDO BANKS, ET AL.
REAH RUSSELL MEIER, ET AL.
RICHARD L. BOURGEOIS, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is Defendants Reah Russell Meier; Turo, Inc.; and
Berkley Specialty Underwriting Managers, LLC's
(“Movants”) Motion to Compel (R. Doc. 17) filed
on October 2, 2017. The motion is opposed. (R. Doc. 20).
January 20, 2016, Leonardo Banks and Maya Banks, individually
and on behalf of their minor child (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”), initiated this action in state
court, alleging that Mr. Banks and the defendant Reah Russel
Meier were involved in an automobile accident on July 24,
2015. (R. Doc. 1-1 at 1-4). Plaintiffs named as a defendant
GEICO Casualty Company (“GEICO”) in light of
their uninsured/underinsured motorist (“UM”)
insurance policy numbered 4321665624. (R. Doc. 1-1 at 3).
Plaintiffs seek recovery for medical and related expenses;
physical injury; physical pain and suffering; mental anguish
and distress; loss of earnings/loss of earning capacity; loss
of enjoyment of life; and other damages to be shown at trial.
(R. Doc. 1-1 at 2).
December 7, 2016, Plaintiffs initiated another action in
state court alleging that Mr. Banks was involved in a
subsequent accident on January 19, 2016. (R. Doc. 17-3).
Plaintiffs named GEICO as a defendant in the subsequent
action in light of the same UM insurance policy. (R. Doc.
17-3 at 3).
January 9, 2017, the defendants RelayRides, Inc., SuperKarma,
Inc. and Nautilus Insurance Company removed the instant
action to this Court alleging that the Court has diversity
jurisdiction over the action. (R. Doc. 1).
January 17, 2017, Nautilus Insurance Company filed an Answer.
(R. Doc. 5). Among other things, it raises the affirmative
defense that the injuries and/or damages sustained by
Plaintiffs resulted from “intervening or superseding
causes” for which it cannot be held responsible. (R.
Doc. 5 at 4).
January 31, 2017, GEICO filed an Answer. (R. Doc. 7). Among
other things, it raises the affirmative defense that the
damages sustained by Plaintiffs “were caused in whole
or in part by a superseding or intervening cause or
accident” for which it cannot be held responsible. (R.
Doc. 7 at 4).
24, 2017, Movants served a subpoena duces tecum on
GEICO, seeking production of the following documents:
A certified and complete copy of
the claims file including all notes correspondence, emails,
reports, settlement demands, photographs, repair estimates,
appraisals, police reports, receipts, medical records,
pleadings, statements and other documentation maintained
and/or in the possession of Geico Casualty Company with
regard to LEONARDO BANKS . . . . This request specifically
includes, but is not limited to, the complete file for Case
No. 653622 filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge and captioned “Leonardo M.
Banks, Sr., et al vs. Geico Casualty Company”, policy
(R. Doc. 17-4; R. Doc. 17-5).
25, 2017, GEICO's counsel sent an e-mail to Movants'
counsel objecting to the subpoena on the following bases:
“overbroad, irrelevant, and may seek privileged
information created in anticipation of litigation, work
product, and attorney client communications.” (R. Doc.
17-6). Movants and GEICO then discussed compliance with the
subpoena over the course of two months. (R. Docs. 17-7, 17-8,
September 27, 2017, GEICO provided a formal objection and
response, reiterating its objections of overbreadth,
irrelevance, and privilege. (R. Doc. 17-10). Notwithstanding
these objections, GEICO produced (1) “Adjuster log
notes from first notice of loss (1/28/16) to receipt of
lawsuit (1/13/17) (pp. 41-57)” and (2)
“[Plaintiffs' counsel's] correspondence to
GEICO dated 1/4/17.” (R. Doc. 17-11 at 2).
September 30, 2017, Movants' counsel sent an e-mail to
GEICO's counsel responding to the objections and
requested that GEICO supplement its response to the subpoena
and provide a privilege ...