United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division
A Doughty, Judge.
B. WHITEHURST, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Discovery [Rec.
Doc. 99] fled by Plaintiffs, Eric Prudhomme and Elvin Jack,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated.
Defendants, Government Employees Insurance Company and GEICO
General Insurance Company (collectively “GEICO”),
have filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs'
Motion. [Rec. Doc. 113].
filed this Motion To Compel contending that Plaintiffs'
attempts to obtain discoverable information have been
“thwarted” by GEICO. They seek an order
compelling GElCO “to produce documents responsive to
Plaintiffs' Requests for Production, to produce corporate
representatives who are knowledgeable about the topics they
have been designated to testify and to produce deponents who
are not unreasonably evasive and uncooperative during
depositions.” R. 99.
Motion provides the following:
GEICO's 30(b)(6) WITNESS
contend that Troy Don Penry was designated by GEICO as their
30(b)(6) corporate representative to testify on the following
topic requested by Plaintiffs 30(b)(6) deposition Notice:
3. The process by which you identified the need for the CCC
Valuescope system and the process by which the CCC Valuescope
system was ultimately used;
4. Your communications with any employee, agent, or
representative of CCC Valuescope regarding your use of the
CCC Valuescope system prior to its implementation by you and
the factors relating to your decisions to use the CCC
5. The definition of the type of system that the CCC
Valuescope system is, and how it reaches its values
(e.g., a used motor vehicle industry source, a
comparable vehicle search or a combination of both).
. . .
7. Comments and feedback given to CCC Valuescope by GEICO
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE
COMPANY on the product before, during, or after its purchase
and implementation at GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY.
R. 99, Exh. A.
state that when asked about Topics 3 and 5, specifics as to
the CCC Valuescope system, Penry indicated he had no
knowledge of the topic and could not speak as to it. R.
99-2, Depo. Of Penry, 20:21-23, 22:5-23:8, 33:15-34:16,
46:2- 47-4, 47:5-1. As to Topics 4 and 7, Plaintiffs
represent that Penry stated that he wasn't with the
company when the decision to use Valuescope was made and he
was not part of such conversations. Id. at
34:24-35.4. Specifically as to Topic 7 Penry stated he could
not say with any certainty whether GEICO provided any
comments or feedback on the CCC valuation product to CCC.
Id. at 41:22-42:16, 43:12-16, 44:12-17. Thus,
Plaintiffs contend, GEICO produced a 30(b)(6) witness to
testify as to the corporation's knowledge who was not
given any of that knowledge or adequately prepared in any way
to testify on behalf of GEICO. Plaintiffs move the Court to
compel GEICO to produce an adequately-prepared 30(b)(6)
designee, at GEICO's cost, for a repeated deposition.
GEICO's opposition to the motion, it contends that
Plaintiffs' requests outlined above seek information
related to GEICO's initial purchase and implementation of
CCC's valuation product. As testified by Penry,
“GEICO believes the process started sometime during the
1990's.” Generally, GEICO states that its initial
implementation of CCC's product for valuing total loss
vehicles occurred more than 20 years ago. It further states
that Plaintiffs' claim is that GEICO's use of the CCC
product violated LSA-R.S. 22:1892B(5) and that statute was
not enacted until June 2010, at least ten years after GEICO
began using the CCC product. 2010 La. Sess. Law. Serv. Act
1032 (H.B. 1011).
further contends because it does not centrally or uniformly
store documents from before 2003, there is no easy way to
determine what, if anything exists from before 2003, where it
is located, or how to restore it to a usable format.
Post-2003 data is stored on Magnetic Data Tapes held by
third-party vendors. The tapes capture a snapshot of data at
a specific point in time, and include data from thousands of
employees. Meaning, a tape from April 18, 2005 would capture
a snapshot of the data for thousands of employees as it
existed on April 18, 2005. In its explanation to the Court,
GEICO describes the arduous and time consuming process of
restoring the data on each tape. R. 113-1, p. 9.
objects to Plaintiffs' motion to compel another 30(b)(6)
deposition as irrelevant because the
“was not... nor could not” have been a factor in
the decision of why GEICO chose the product. GEICO further
objects contending that the age of the data and information
requested in the 30(b)(6) deposition, post-2003, would be
difficult to locate and access, and at best reveal marginally