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.

Motte v. Protective Insurance Co.

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Lafayette Division

December 17, 2019

TERRANCE MOTTE
v.
PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY

          JUNEAU Judge

          ORDER

          PATRICK J. HANNA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Currently pending is the plaintiff's motion to compel and for in camera inspection. (Rec. Doc. 29). The motion is opposed. Considering the evidence, the briefs, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, and for the reasons explained below, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

         Background

         On the morning of March 22, 2016, Shawn Belaire dropped his truck off at Todd's Car Wash on Pinhook Road and went to work. Eric Fontenot, an employee of Todd's Car Wash, allegedly smoked a joint containing synthetic marijuana, then drove Mr. Belaire's truck onto Pinhook Road, crashing into the Federal Express truck that was being driven by the plaintiff, Terrance Motte. Mr. Motte, who was in the course and scope of his employment for Jason Perry Transport, Inc. at the time of the incident, allegedly sustained injuries in the collision. Mr. Motte is seeking to recover uninsured/underinsured motorists' coverage from Protective Insurance Company, which provided UM coverage for the vehicle he was driving at the time of the accident.

         Law and Analysis

         In resolving the motion, this Court is guided by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26, which states that parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the factors set forth in the rule.

         The defendant's corporate deposition is scheduled to be taken in January 2020. In connection with that deposition, the plaintiff provided the defendant with seventeen topics to be addressed at the deposition and twenty requests for the production of documents at the deposition. (Rec. Doc. 29-7). The defendant responded to these discovery requests, articulating objections and producing a privilege log. The plaintiff now seeks to compel more complete responses from the defendant. Each item will be addressed in turn. However, this Court will not retype each and every request in its entirety but will refer to the requests by the numbers assigned on Exhibit A (the requests for production) and Exhibit B (the topics to be addressed)[1] to the deposition notice filed in the record.

         Areas of inquiry at the deposition.

         1. Protective's objections are overruled except that the inquiry shall be limited to written policies, procedures, and claim handling practices.

         2. Protective's objections are overruled.

         3. No deposition testimony regarding this area of inquiry shall be permitted because this item duplicates Item No. 1.

         4. Protective's objections are overruled.

         5. Protective's objections are overruled.

         6. Protective's ...


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.