*1 This action arises out of defendant's denial of insurance coverage for plaintiff's property damage suffered after a July 2007 storm. Before the court is plaintiff's motion to compel defendant to provide discovery relating to other water damage claims arising from the same storm. Plaintiff also seeks discovery relating to the pending action, Be'Er Hagolah Institute v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co., No. CV 09-2618(RRM)(VVP), which it claims is “practically identical” to the foregoing action. Defendant has cross-moved for a protective order.

In support of its motion to compel, plaintiff argues that it is proper to seek discovery relating to how insurance companies have handled similar claims. Defendant objects to plaintiff's demand because it contends that plaintiff has failed to show either that the underlying facts or the coverages were similar. Both parties nonetheless agree that there were a total of twenty claims that were filed as a result of the July 2007 storm. Further, defendant has provided basic information about six “sample” claims, and plaintiff has made a compromise offer that only these six files be produced.

Plaintiff has met its burden to show that claims arising from the July 2007 storm are relevant. The claims may tend to show defendant's practices in interpreting relevant policy provisions. While defendant is free to argue before the trier of fact that those claims are dissimilar and therefore not proper comparisons, plaintiff is permitted to test and dispute that argument through the aid of discovery. At the same time, based upon the current record, requiring defendant to provide all twenty claim files would be duplicative and burdensome. Plaintiff has also not met its burden to show the relevance of Be'Er Hagolah Institute v. Philadelphia Indem. Ins. Co. because the damage took place 16 months after the July 2007 storm. The undersigned finds that plaintiff's proposal that defendant provide only the six “sample” claims is a proper compromise. Further, the undersigned agrees that defendant is entitled to redact attorney-client work product and the insureds’ identities from any documents provided to plaintiff.

Accordingly, defendant is ordered to produce documents and interrogatory responses arising from the six identified sample claims. Defendant may redact privileged information, including attorney-client work product and the insureds’ identities, subject to defendant providing plaintiff with a privilege log in compliance with Local Rule 26.2 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A)(ii).

SO ORDERED: