This case involves a dispute arising out of Plaintiffs' insurance claim for hail and/or wind storm damages to their home located in Grand Prairie, Texas on June 13, 2012 (the “Claim”). See Original Pet. [1-5 at 4-9]. Plaintiffs' Petition includes allegations that Defendant engaged in fraud and unfair settlement practices in handling Plaintiffs' Claim, and that Defendant failed to properly train Dion McKinley, the adjuster assigned to Plaintiffs' Claim. See id. [1-5 at 9-13]. In their Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs ask the Court to compel Defendant to supplement its discovery responses to fully and adequately respond to Plaintiffs' requests and to produce additional, responsive documents. See Mot. to Compel [D.E. 41 at 1]. Plaintiffs contend that Defendant made a variety of baseless and unsubstantiated objections, failed to fully and adequately respond to Plaintiffs' discovery requests, and wholly failed to produce responsive information and documents. See Pls.' Br. [D.E. 42 at 6].

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 4: All documents used to instruct, advise, guide, inform, educate, or assist provided to any person handling the claim made the basis of this Lawsuit that related to the adjustment of this type of claim, i.e., hail property damage.

Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to these documents, which include, but are not limited to: (1) Catastrophe Wind/Hail Study Guide; (2) Fire IA Training Estimatics Study Guide; (3) Power Point Presentation on the handling of claims for hail damage; (4) Hail Training Module 1 – General Overview of Handling of a Hail Claim; (5) Catastrophe Basic Estimating Proficiency Exam; and (6) HO Policy Exam with Answers. See Pls.' Br. [D.E. 42 at 11]. Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to these training materials and procedure guides provided to the personnel who handled their Claim to determine whether such materials were complied with in handling their Claim. See id. [D.E. 42 at 11]. Furthermore, Plaintiffs argue that any assertion that this production would be unduly burdensome is without merit, because Plaintiffs are aware that these materials have already been produced in another case. See id. [D.E. 42 at 11].

Defendant argues that the documents sought in this request are irrelevant, because there are no factually supported allegations that Defendant did not properly train the adjusters, that the adjusters did not follow the training that they were given, or that the adjusters were actually trained with any of the requested materials. See Def.'s Br. [D.E. 45 at 12]. Moreover, Defendant argues that because the State of Texas only issues licenses to adjusters who have established that they have sufficient experience or training with regard to claims handling, the amount of additional training, if any, Defendant gives to its claims adjusters is irrelevant, and such information is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See id. [D.E. 45 at 13]. Furthermore, Defendant argues that even if training materials and claims handling guides were relevant as a general matter, the only materials that would potentially be relevant are those pertinent to the June 13, 2012 storm at issue that were used by or made available to Dion McKinley. See id. [D.E. 45 at 13]. Defendant argues that any materials that predate the storm at issue, or relate to other areas of the state that were not impacted by the storm at issue are of no consequence here. See id. [D.E. 45 at 13]. Defendant further argues that this request is unduly burdensome, because it essentially demands every claim handling policy/procedure document related to property damage claims in Texas, which would be extremely onerous to gather and produce. See id. [D.E. 45 at 13]. Defendant contends that this request seeks far more documents than those Plaintiffs specifically identify as conceded in their brief. See id. [D.E. 45 at 13].

*2 Upon consideration of the foregoing, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel with respect to Request for Production No. 4 is granted in part, as limited to the materials provided to the personnel who actually handled Plaintiffs' Claim. The Court finds that this information is relevant to the issue of whether Plaintiffs' Claim was properly handled by Defendant. See United States v. Tools & Metals, Inc., No. 3:05-CV-627-L, No. 3:05-CV-2301-L, 2011 WL 856928, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2011) (“[T]he threshold for relevance in discovery matters is extremely low.”); FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1)(“Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim .... Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.”).

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 1: Produce underwriting files and documents relating to the underwriting for all insurance policies for the Property identified in the Petition. This request is limited to the past 5 years. To the extent Defendant contends that the underwriting file or documents older than 5 years impact the damages or coverage, produce the underwriting file or document.

Plaintiffs state that this request seeks information that is relevant to the subject matter of this lawsuit. See Pls.' Br. [D.E. 42 at 12]. Plaintiffs point out that Judge Ramirez overruled Defendant's objections and ordered Defendant to produce documents responsive to an identical request in Cano v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 3:14-CV-2720-L. See Pls.' Br. [D.E. 42 at 12]; Ex. E [D.E. 41-1 at 34]. Defendant argues in its response that this request is over-broad, because it is not limited to the policy at issue and demands irrelevant materials. See Def.'s Br. [D.E. 45 at 16]. Defendant argues that underwriting relates to an insurer's decision to provide insurance, including issues such as risk assessment and premium setting, but there are no allegations in this lawsuit questioning the validity of the issuance of the policy or the meaning of the policy's terms. See id. [D.E. 45 at 16]. Defendant argues that the underwriting materials are irrelevant to the claims at issue, because it is undisputed that Plaintiffs' policy was underwritten and in force at the time of the loss. See id. [D.E. 45 at 16]. Further, Defendant points out that while Plaintiffs contend that Judge Ramirez overruled Defendant's objections and ordered Defendant to produce documents responsive to an identical request in the Cano lawsuit, the plaintiffs in that case narrowed their request to a period of less than two years, and Judge Ramirez approved the narrowed request. See id. [D.E. 45 at 16].

Upon consideration of the foregoing, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel with respect to Request for Production Number 1 is denied without prejudice. Other than stating that the Court granted the identical request in a different lawsuit, which involved different plaintiffs, Plaintiffs here have not explained how the underwriting materials are relevant to their claims in the present lawsuit. While the material sought in this request may have been relevant in the Cano lawsuit, and may also be relevant in this lawsuit for similar reasons, the Court is not able to make that determination, because Plaintiffs have provided no explanation as to the relevance of the sought materials to the subject matter of this lawsuit. The fact that the Court granted the same request in a different lawsuit cannot be the sole basis for relevance in this lawsuit.

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 5: A complete copy of the personnel file related to performance (excluding medical and retirement information) for all people and their managers and/or supervisors who directly handled the claim made the basis of this Lawsuit, including all documents relating to applications for employment, former and current resumes, last known address, job title, job descriptions, reviews, evaluations, and all drafts or versions of requested documents. This request is limited to the past 5 years.

*3 Plaintiffs argue that they are seeking this information in order to obtain information related to the adjuster's training and experience, because Defendant relied entirely on the adjuster's estimate to deny Plaintiffs' claim for damages. See Pls.' Br. [D.E. 42 at 13]. Plaintiffs argue that because they allege that Defendant performed an unreasonable investigation of Plaintiffs' claim, the training their assigned adjuster had, or has not had, is very relevant to whether Defendant performed an unreasonable investigation of their claim. See id. [D.E. 42 at 13]. Defendant, on the other hand, argues that this request seeks irrelevant information, because Plaintiffs have not pled any facts in their Petition to support a claim that an adjuster, manager, or supervisor acted in contravention of his or her proper duties, or to show that the dispute between the parties would somehow be more readily resolved if Plaintiffs were allowed to subject the adjusters, managers, or supervisors to such unreasonable invasions of their privacy rights. See Def.'s Br. [D.E. 45 at 17]. Defendant further argues that Plaintiffs' allegations against Defendant are based on alleged Texas Insurance Code violations, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealings, and none of these claims raise as an issue the employment histories of the adjusters, or their managers and supervisors. See id. [D.E. 45 at 17].

Upon consideration of the foregoing, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is granted in part with respect to Request for Production Number 5. The Motion to Compel is granted with respect to documents sought “related to performance (excluding medical and retirement information) for all people and their managers and/or supervisors who directly handled the claim made the basis of this Lawsuit.” However, the Motion to Compel is denied with respect to “documents relating to applications for employment, former and current resumes, [and] last known address,” as the Court does not find them to be relevant to the issue of Defendant's liability arising from the level of training of its adjusters. The Court also does not find that the request for “all drafts or versions of requested documents,” is germane to the present issues, and the Motion to Compel is further denied with respect to these documents. While the Court recognizes that the threshold for relevance in discovery matters is low, Plaintiffs' request must still presently appear relevant to the claims at issue in this lawsuit. See Arters v. Univision Radio Broad. TX, LP, No. 3:07-CV-957-D, 2009 WL 1313285, at *3 (N.D. Tex. May 12, 2009) (“[C]ourts should not allow parties to ‘roam in the shadow zones of relevancy to explore matter which does not presently appear germane on the theory that it might conceivably become so.’ ... ‘[A] trial court retains discretion to determine that a discovery request is too broad and oppressive.’ ” (quoting Boyd v. Am. Airlines, Inc., No. 3:01-CV-2230-D, 2002 WL 32360294, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2002); Marshall v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 576 F.2d 588, 592 (5th Cir. 1978))).

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 7: All documents reflecting the pre-anticipation of litigation reserve(s) set on the claim made the basis of this Lawsuit, including any changes to the reserve(s) along with supporting documentation.

Plaintiffs argue that the information related to Defendant's set reserve of the maximum amount it would pay Plaintiffs on their Claim is relevant to their allegation that Defendants mishandled their claim. See Pls.' Br. [D.E. 42 at 14]. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant could have initially valued their Claim at a high amount, and then only paid Plaintiffs a fraction of the initial value, which would be evidence of Defendant's bad faith insurance practices, as well as mishandling of Plaintiffs' Claim in violation of Chapter 541 of the Texas Insurance Code. See id. [D.E. 42 at 14]. Defendant, on the other hand, argues that any pre-litigation reserves set by Defendant are wholly irrelevant to the question of whether Defendant properly adjusted Plaintiffs' Claim. See Def.'s Br. [D.E. 45 at 18]. Upon consideration, the Court finds that information regarding reserves is relevant to Defendant's valuation of Plaintiffs' Claim, which in turn is relevant to their allegations that Defendant engaged in fraud and unfair settlement practices. While a showing that Defendant paid Plaintiffs less than the reserve amount does not, in and of itself, evidence bad faith insurance practices, such conduct in conjunction with other evidence may demonstrate bad faith. Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is granted with respect to Request for Production Number 7.

*4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12: All indemnity agreements in effect at the time of Plaintiffs' claim between Defendant and any person(s) and/or entity(ies) who handled the claim made the basis of the Lawsuit.

Plaintiffs argue that this information is relevant in that it enables counsel for both sides to make realistic appraisals of the case, so that settlement and litigation strategy are based on knowledge rather than speculation. See Pls.' Br. [D.E. 42 at 14-15]. Defendant seeks to limit this request to agreements which could apply to the satisfaction of the judgment in this case, and argues that because Plaintiffs' request seeks all indemnity agreements in effect at the time of Plaintiffs' Claim between Defendant and any person or entity that handled Plaintiffs' claim, Plaintiffs' request is over-broad and seeks irrelevant information, including agreements that only pertain to other claims. See Def.'s Br. [D.E. 45 at 18-19]. The Federal Rules provide that “a party must, without awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties ... any insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment.” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(A)(1)(a)(iv). Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is granted in part with respect to Request for Production Number 12, as limited to indemnity agreements that could be applied to satisfy the judgment in this case.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant generally objects to Plaintiffs' Production Protocol (“ESI Protocol”) without demonstrating how any specific request for production requires unreasonable efforts to produce the information sought in the form requested. See Pls.' Br. [D.E 42 at 8]. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant should not be permitted to assert global objections in this manner and should be required to object to each particular request as to which it contends application of the ESI Protocol is objectionable, and state the specific basis for each such objection. See id. [D.E 42 at 8]. Defendant argues that producing the documents in the requested native, near-native, or delimited electronic file formats will cause undue burden and expense, and that providing them in a searchable static image format complies with the Federal Rules. Def.'s Br. [D.E. 45 at 19-29]. In support of its argument, Defendant submits the affidavits of Timothy M. Opsitnick, Defendant's expert on electronically stored information, and Ian Friedrich, Defendant's Business Analyst. See Def.'s Ex. D [D.E. 46-4]; Ex. E [D.E. 46-5]. Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court finds that the production of the requested documents in the searchable static image format is proper. Further, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated the relevance of any metadata that they seek. Therefore, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel is denied with respect to this request.

Plaintiffs argue that while Defendant made several objections based on privilege, Defendant failed to provide a privilege log. See Pls.' Br. [D.E. 42 at 15]. Defendant contends that the privilege log requirement in Federal Rule Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A) only applies to information that is “otherwise discoverable,” and thus, Defendant is not required to provide a privilege log until the Court compels the production of documents as to which it is has objected on other grounds. See Def.'s Br. [D.E. 45 at 29-30]. The Federal Rules provide that:

FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(5)(A). Defendant shall provide Plaintiffs a privilege log for the information with respect to which it is asserting privilege that it has been ordered to produce herein.

SO ORDERED, December 21, 2015.