*1 Defendant Unitrin Auto and Home Insurance Company (“Unitrin”) has moved for a protective order (ECF No. 38) in connection with certain discovery propounded by Plaintiffs Matthias J. Kleinz and Laura C. Wiegand (“Plaintiffs”). The discovery at issue relates to Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim.

Unitrin contends in its Motion for Protective Order that the contested discovery relates to four categories: Unitrin's financial information; claims manuals, training manuals and other in-house documents regarding its policies and procedures; bad faith claims, complaints and grievances over the past ten years; and the identity and personnel files of claims adjusters who have worked for Unitrin for the past ten years. It asserts that this discovery is irrelevant, overbroad, unduly burdensome and, in part, constitutes trade secrets. The discovery sought in each of these categories will be addressed below.

A. Financial Information

Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 1 seeks information about Unitrin's net worth, gross assets and net income or loss over the last five years. Document Request No. 3 requests production of Unitrin's last five financial statements and profit and loss or operating statements. Notably, Unitrin does not dispute Plaintiffs’ general entitlement to financial information relevant to their punitive damages claim. However, Unitrin objects to this discovery on the grounds that Plaintiffs’ requests are overly broad and unduly burdensome, citing Cantor v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc'y of the United States, 1998 WL 306208, at *1 (E.D. Pa. June 9, 1998) (plaintiff only entitled to the most recent publicly available financial statement). It also asserts that as Unitrin is a public company, some of its financial information is available through an internet search and it should not be compelled at this stage of the litigation to produce anything further.

Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to this information because they are seeking punitive damages and cite authority to support their position. See, e.g., Luria Bros. & Co. v. Allen, 469 F. Supp. 575, 579-80 (W.D. Pa. 1979); Grosek v. Panther Transp., Inc., 251 F.R.D. 162, 166 (M.D. Pa. 2008). Plaintiffs further assert that their requests are limited to five years and that an internet search would not provide full and complete information about Unitrin's financial condition.

As Plaintiffs seek punitive damages, they are entitled to certain financial information regarding Unitrin and should not be limited to information that is public, which may or may not provide a full picture of its financial condition. However, the Court also notes that Unitrin's motion for partial summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim is pending and will be resolved after discovery on the merits of the bad faith claim. Therefore, Unitrin must produce its five most recent annual financial statements within ten days of the resolution of Unitrin's partial motion for summary judgment if its motion is denied. If necessary, Plaintiffs will then be permitted to depose a corporate designee regarding Unitrin's financial statements and related information.

B. Manuals and Related Documents

*2 Issues related to this topic arise in connection with Interrogatory No. 12 and ten document requests (Document Request Nos. 2 and 15 through 23). Without reciting in full the detail with respect to each of these requests for information or documents, all of them relate in general to the policies and procedures of Unitrin regarding claims handling and training. Unitrin objects to this discovery as overbroad, irrelevant and protected as trade secrets. It notes that the broad requests are not tailored to the handling of Plaintiffs’ bad faith claim but rather, seek information about the handling and adjustment of various types of insurance claims. The claim here, Unitrin asserts, relates to Unitrin's failure to make a higher offer to settle Plaintiff Kleinz's UIM claim and its refusal to re-evaluate this claim after it allegedly received more documentation. Unitrin takes the position that these allegations do not relate in any way to its policies and procedures, and at any rate, even if the claims adjuster “strayed” from these policies, that is not evidence of bad faith.

Plaintiffs disagree, contending that Unitrin's manuals and related materials are relevant in bad faith litigation because they show how employees are taught and trained regarding claims handling. While they acknowledge that an adjuster's deviation from Unitrin's policies is not evidence, in and of itself, of bad faith, it may be probative of bad faith. Further, Plaintiffs note, if any of this information is confidential or proprietary, it can be produced pursuant to a confidentiality agreement.

Turning to the specific discovery requests, the information sought in Interrogatory No. 12, which asks if Unitrin's employees followed usual procedures in connection with the handling, adjusting and defense of Plaintiff Kleinz's claim, seeks information that is relevant to the bad faith claim because information about a substantial deviation could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover, it is neither overly broad nor unduly burdensome.

With respect to the document requests, certain of these requests are overbroad, unduly burdensome or seek information that goes substantially beyond the actual issues in this case. Plaintiffs’ bad faith cause of action relates to Unitrin's handling of a UIM insurance claim; specifically, Unitrin's alleged failure to fairly evaluate Plaintiff Kleinz's claim, its alleged refusal to extend a reasonable settlement offer and its alleged failure to re-evaluate the claim after receiving additional documentation. Document Request Nos. 2 and 15 are overly broad as they are not limited to UIM claims or damages. Similarly, Request Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 request a broad array of information about training that is unrelated to the instant claim or are duplicative of requests that relate to UIM claims. Accordingly, Unitrin's motion for protective order will be granted regarding these document requests.

At the same time, those portions of Unitrin's policies, procedures and manuals regarding the handling of UIM claims that were in effect at the time of the underlying accident (Request No. 17), those portions relating to assessing claims for damages in UIM claims in the same time frame (Request No. 16, in part) and documents regarding training related to the handling of UIM claims (Request No. 23) could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Therefore, Unitrin's motion for a protective order will be denied as to these requests for production.

Finally, to the degree that Unitrin asserts that the requested information or documents include trade secrets or other confidential or proprietary information, Unitrin shall produce this information only after a confidentiality agreement is in place.

C. Other Bad Faith Claims

In Plaintiffs’ Interrogatory No. 11 and Document Request Nos. 4 and 6, they seek information about bad faith lawsuits, complaints or grievance made against Unitrin in Pennsylvania over the last ten years. Unitrin objects to this discovery as irrelevant, over broad and unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs assert that they are entitled to this information because it could demonstrate whether Unitrin has a pattern or practice of improperly denying claims or has acted in an inconsistent manner in resolving claims.

*3 In support of its position, Unitrin cites to a decision by Judge Gibson in Horvath v. Globe Life & Accident Ins. Co., 2019 WL 975172, at *1 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2019). In Horvath, the court denied plaintiff's request for providing information about all bad faith lawsuits in which the defendant had been involved in the preceding ten years, concluding that this information was irrelevant to the case at issues. Judge Gibson noted the general rule in the Third Circuit that disfavors discovery about other bad faith claims. See Horvath and cases cited therein.

Here, the Court agrees with this analysis. Plaintiffs’ discovery goes back ten years and seeks information not only about bad faith lawsuits, but also “formal and informal complaints” and “grievances.” These sweeping requests are vague as to the possible meaning of informal complaints or grievances. Moreover, requiring Unitrin to produce every document relating to these matters is unduly burdensome and the time period of ten years is equally burdensome. Plaintiffs have made no showing as to the necessity to obtain this information. Indeed, this lawsuit is limited in scope and involved a specific and narrow set of facts regarding the communications between Plaintiffs and Unitrin's claims adjuster as they relate to the value of the claim and whether Unitrin's failure to make a re-evaluation of the claim, and a corresponding higher offer, is evidence of bad faith. In this case, as Judge Gibson noted, potential factual differences and varying circumstances make discovery about other grievances, complaints and lawsuits over ten years irrelevant.

As such, Unitrin's motion for protective order will be granted as to these discovery requests.

D. Claims Handler Information

Unitrin seeks a protective order regarding Interrogatory Nos. 13 and 14. Interrogatory 13 seeks the identity and a variety of other information about every claims adjuster employed by Unitrin over a ten year period who handled property damage and lost wage claims. Unitrin asserts that this interrogatory is extremely broad and there is nothing about the present lawsuit that would warrant such expansive discovery.

Plaintiffs claim that this information is relevant so that they can understand the “nuances of Defendant's claims handlers’ training” in order to show that Unitrin acted in bad faith. They contend that this discovery could show that Unitrin trained its adjusters in a manner that would encourage them to value Unitrin's goals over those of its insureds.

Plaintiffs’ position is without merit. This case is about the conduct of the claims handler involved in Plaintiff Kleinz's UIM claim. Unitrin is being required to producing information about training as it relates to UIM claims. It is entirely unnecessary to obtain the identify of all claims handlers over a ten-year period, including those who handle other types of claims, in order to ascertain if any bad-faith conduct took place with respect to Plaintiff Kleinz's UIM claim. The motion for protective order will be granted regarding Interrogatory No. 13.

On the other hand, Interrogatory No. 14, which seeks information about the claims person(s) involved in the UIM claim at issue, is relevant and could lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As a result, Unitrin's motion as to this interrogatory will be denied.

Therefore, based upon the reasons set forth herein, it is hereby ORDERED that Unitrin's Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Within twenty days of the date of this Order, Unitrin shall respond to Interrogatory Nos. 12 and 14 and shall produce the documents requested in Document Request Nos. 16, 17 and 23 as they relate to UIM claims only. Further, in the event that Unitrin's motion for partial summary judgment is denied, it shall produce its five most recent annual financial statements no later than ten days after the resolution of its motion. Finally, to the degree that Unitrin asserts that any of the requested information or documents include trade secrets or other confidential or proprietary information, Unitrin shall be required to produce this information only after a confidentiality agreement is in place.

*4 In all other respects, Unitrin's Motion for Protective Order is GRANTED.