*1 Before the court is a Motion to Compel Discovery from United States Life Insurance Company (“USLI”) filed by Plaintiff on February 3, 2021.[1] For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

I. BACKGROUND

This action arises out of a dispute over Plaintiff's claimed entitlement to disability benefits pursuant to a long-term disability insurance policy. He is asserting claims against defendants for: (1) breach of contract; (2) reasonable expectations; (3) fraud; (4) bad faith; (5) false promise/misrepresentation pursuant to N.D.C.C. 51-15; (6) intentional infliction of emotional distress; (7) negligent infliction of emotional distress; and (8) oppression, fraud, actual malice, and bad faith litigation tactics pursuant to N.D.C.C. § 32-3.2-11.

On February 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed motions to compel discovery from USLI. At issue are USLI's responses to 3 interrogatories (and their subparts) and 7 requests for production of documents (and their subparts) from Plaintiff. USLI objected generally to these discovery requests on the grounds of irrelevance, overbreadth, undue burden, and confidentiality. It also objected specifically on the grounds that Plaintiff had exceeded the numerical limitations on discovery requests as set for in the scheduling and discovery plan that was agreed upon by the parties and adopted by the court. Plaintiff seeks an order from the court compelling USLI to fully answer the interrogatories and produce the documents as requested, including an unredacted copy of the Claims Management Services Agreement between DIB and American General Assurance Company. He also seeks an award of the attorney's fees he incurred in bringing the instant motion. He does not dispute that he has served in excess of the 25 interrogatories and 75 requests for production, the numbers allotted to each side in the scheduling and discovery order. Rather, he stresses that these limitations were agreed upon at the outset of this action when there were only two named defendants in the case and that matters have since evolved and that additional discovery is required. Additionally, he asserts that USLI engaged in subterfuge at the outset of this action that required him to expend a substantial number of his allotted discovery requests in order to ascertain the identity of the administrator of his claims, that USLI should not be permitted to now benefit from this subterfuge and deny him the discovery to which he is entitled, and that his additional discovery requests are both reasonable and necessary. (Doc. No. 191).

On February 17, 2021, USLI filed a response in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to compel. It asserts that Plaintiff has exceeded the numerical limitations on discovery requests, flouting the rules of procedure and the terms of the scheduling and discovery order in the process, that Plaintiff's discovery requests insofar as they pertain to the issues of exemplary damages and attorney's fees are premature, and that the financial information Plaintiff is seeking is otherwise inadmissible at trial.

*2 On February 24, 2021, Plaintiff filed a reply in support of his motion. Thus, the motion has been fully briefed and is ripe for the court's consideration.

II. APPLICABLE LAW

Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure defines the scope of permissible discovery as follows:

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(1).

“The scope of discovery under Rule 26(b) is extremely broad.” Gowan v. Mid Century Ins. Co., 309 F.R.D. 503, 508 (D.S.D. 2015) (citing 8 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure §§ 2007, 3637 (1970)). “The reason for the broad scope of discovery is that ‘[m]utual knowledge of all the relevant facts gathered by both parties is essential to proper litigation. To that end, either party may compel the other to disgorge whatever facts he has in his possession.’ ” 8 Wright & Miller, § 2007, 39 (quoting Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507–08 (1947)).

“Discoverable information itself need not be admissible at trial; rather, the defining question is whether it is within the scope of discovery.” Colonial Funding Network, Inc. v. Genuine Builders, Inc., 326 F.R.D. 206, 211 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). After the proponent makes a threshold showing of relevance, the party opposing a motion to compel has the burden of showing its objections are valid by providing specific explanations or factual support as to how each discovery request is improper. Jo Ann Howard & Assocs., P.C. v. Cassity, 303 F.R.D. 539, 542 (E.D. Mo 2014) (citing Hofer v. Mack Trucks, Inc., 981 F.2d 377, 380 (8th Cir. 1992), and St. Paul Reinsurance Co. V. Commercial Fin. Corp., 198 F.R.D. 508, 511-12 (N.D. Iowa 2000)). “The party must demonstrate that the requested documents either do not come within the broad scope of relevance defined pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1) or else are of such marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosures.” Id. (quoted case omitted); Jo Ann Howard & Assocs., P.C. v. Cassity, 303 F.R.D. 539, 542 (E.D. Mo 2014) (citation and quotation omitted); Klein v. Affiliated Grp., Inc., No. 18-CV-949 DWF/ECW, 2019 WL 1307884, at *2 (D. Minn. Mar. 22, 2019).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Discovery Requests and Responses to Discovery Requests at Issue

Below are the interrogatories, requests for production, and responses to them that are presently at issue.

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: In relation to the Group Insurance Reinsurance and Administrative Services Agreement between American General Life Insurance Company and the United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York and Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company effective April 1, 2016 (Deposition Exhibit 120) (hereinafter “Services Agreement”), for both claims active before and after the effective date of the Services Agreement, please provide the following information:

*3 a. The total amount of fees paid to Hartford Life by American General Life Insurance Company (“American General”) and/or United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York (“US Life”) to Hartford Life since the effective date of the Case Services Agreement to present.

b. The dollar amount paid per claim per month to Hartford Life by American General and/or US Life pursuant to the Services Agreement to date.

c. The number of claims handled by Hartford Life from July 1, 2016 to present by Hartford Life on behalf of American General and/or US Life

d. The current number of claims handled by Hartford Life on behalf of American General and/or US Life.

e. Identify any documents that identify the profit, gross or net, realized by Hartford Life in relation to the handling of claims for American General and/or US Life since July 1, 2016 to present.

f. Please identify with specificity the names of the documents, authors of the documents, and any other documents which address the issue of profits and/or losses by Hartford Life based upon providing administrative services to American General and/or US Life since July 1, 2016.

ANSWER: US Life objects to Interrogatory No. 1 because Plaintiff has already exceeded twenty-five (25) interrogatories, which is the number permitted by the Court's Scheduling Discovery Plan (Doc. No. 32), and has neither sought nor received leave of the Court to serve additional interrogatories. Plaintiff has now served more than double the permitted number of interrogatories. US Life further objects to the extent that Interrogatory No. 1 seeks information about Hartford Life's profits and an identification of documents maintained by Hartford, about which it lacks knowledge sufficient to provide the information requested. US Life further objects to this interrogatory as premature. US Life stands on its objections.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please identify what categories of income and/or types of income for disability claimants US Life, Hartford Life, and/or DIS considers when it determines “60% from all sources” income, including a description of any such sources of income.

ANSWER: US Life objects to Interrogatory No. 2 because Plaintiff has already exceeded twenty-five (25) interrogatories, which is the number permitted by the Court's Scheduling Case Discovery Plan (Doc. No. 32), and has neither sought nor received leave of the Court to serve additional interrogatories. Plaintiff has now served more than double the permitted number of interrogatories. US Life stands on its objections.

INTERROGATORY NO. 3: In relation to the Claim Management Services Agreement between American General Assurance Company and DIS effective October 18, 1999 (Deposition Exhibit 119) (hereinafter “DIS Services Agreement”), for both claims active before and after the effective date of the DIS Services Agreement, please provide the following information:

a. The total amount of fees paid to DIS by American General Life Insurance Company (“American General”) and/or United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York (“US Life”) to DIS since the effective date of the DIS Services Agreement to present.

b. The dollar amount paid per claim per month to DIS by American General and/or US Life pursuant to the DIS Services Agreement to date.

*4 c. The number of claims handled by DIS from 2005 to 2013 on behalf of American General and/or US Life.

d. Identify any documents that identify the profit, gross or net, realized by DIS in relation to the handling of claims for American General and/or US Life from 2005 to present.

e. Please identify with specificity the names of the documents, authors of the documents, and any other documents which address the issue of profits and/or losses by DIS based upon providing administrative services to American General and/or US Life from 2005 to present.

ANSWER: US Life objects to Interrogatory No. 3 because Plaintiff has already exceeded twenty-five (25) interrogatories, which is the number permitted by the Court's Scheduling Discovery Plan (Doc. No. 32), and has neither sought nor received leave of the Court to serve additional interrogatories. Plaintiff has now served more than double the permitted number of interrogatories. US Life further objects to the extent that Interrogatory No. 3 seeks information “from 2005 to present,” given that DIS ceased administering claims for US Life in 2013. US Life further objects to this interrogatory as premature. US Life stands on its objections.

(Doc. No. 192-1).

REQUEST NO. 1: Produce all claims handling or claims administration practice guidelines, manuals, guidelines, text messages, alerts, pop-ups, warnings, and other information or media used or encountered by those persons handling or administering the claim of Ronald Fischer at any time.

RESPONSE: US Life objects to Request No. 1 because Plaintiff has already exceeded seventy-five requests for production of documents, which is the number permitted by the Court's Scheduling Discovery Plan (Doc. No. 32), and has neither sought nor received leave of the Court to serve additional requests. US Life further objects to Request No. 1 because it is unanswerably vague, and seeks information that is not in the possession, custody, or control of US Life. US Life stands on its objections.

REQUEST NO. 2: Produce all documents describing the role or purpose of the risk manager or risk management committee, and all documents which in any way pertain to or describe the policies or procedures of risk management activities.

RESPONSE: US Life objects to Request No. 2 because Plaintiff has already exceeded seventy-five requests for production of documents, which is the number permitted by the Court's Scheduling Discovery Plan (Doc. No. 32), and has neither sought nor received leave of the Court to serve additional requests. US Life further objects that the documents sought by Request No. 2 are irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this action. US Life stands on its objections.

REQUEST NO. 3: Please provide a copy of any and all semi-annual review or reviews of the operations of Hartford Life by American General Life Insurance Company personnel, United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York personnel, or by a third party, as described in Article 4, or any other section or provision of the Group Insurance Reinsurance and Administrative Services Agreement between American General Life Insurance Company and the United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York and Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company effective April 1, 2016 (Deposition Exhibit 120) (hereinafter “Hartford Services Agreement”). Please produce copies of any and all documents in relation thereto.

*5 RESPONSE: US Life objects to Request No. 3 because Plaintiff has already exceeded seventy-five requests for production of documents, which is the number permitted by the Court's Scheduling Discovery Plan (Doc. No. 32), and has neither sought nor received leave of the Court to serve additional requests. US Life further objects to Request No. 3 because “any and all documents in relation thereto” is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and unanswerably vague. US Life stands on its objections.

REQUEST NO. 4: In relation to both claims active before and after the effective date of the Hartford Services Agreement, please provide unredacted copies of any and all documents which relate to the Hartford Services Agreement in relation to the following topics:

a. The total amount of fees paid to Hartford Life by American General Life Insurance Company (“American General”) and/or United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York (“US Life”) to Hartford Life since the effective date of the Hartford Life Services Agreement to present.

b. The dollar amount paid per claim per month to Hartford Life by American General and/or US Life pursuant to the Hartford Services Agreement to date.

c. The number of claims handled by Hartford Life as of July 1, 2016 on behalf of American General and/or US Life.

d. The current number of claims being handled by Hartford Life for American General and/or US Life pursuant to the Hartford Services Agreement.

RESPONSE: US Life objects to Request No. 4 because Plaintiff has already exceeded seventy-five requests for production of documents, which is the number permitted by the Court's Scheduling Discovery Plan (Doc. No. 32), and has neither sought nor received leave of the Court to serve additional requests. US Life further objects to this request as premature. US Life stands on its objections.

REQUEST NO. 5: Please provide a copy of any and all semi-annual review or reviews of the operations of Disability Insurance Specialists, LLC (“DIS”) by American General Assurance Company personnel, United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York personnel, or by a third party, as described in Section 23, or any other section or provision of the Claim Management Services Agreement between American General Assurance Company and DIS effective October 18, 1999 (Deposition Exhibit 119) (hereinafter “DIS Services Agreement”). Please produce copies of any and all documents in relation thereto.

RESPONSE: US Life objects to Request No. 5 because Plaintiff has already exceeded seventy-five requests for production of documents, which is the number permitted by the Court's Scheduling Discovery Plan (Doc. No. 32), and has neither sought nor received leave of the Court to serve additional requests. US Life further objects to Request No. 5 because “any and all documents in relation thereto” is overbroad, unduly burdensome, and unanswerably vague. US Life stands on its objections.

REQUEST NO. 6: In relation to both claims active before and after the effective date of the DIS Services Agreement, please provide unredacted copies of any and all documents which relate to the DIS Services Agreement in relation to the following topics:

e. The total amount of fees paid to DIS by American General Assurance Company (“American General”) and/or United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York (“US Life”) to DIS since the effective date of the DIS Services Agreement to present.

f. The dollar amount paid per claim per month to DIS by American General and/or US Life pursuant to the DIS Services Agreement to date.

*6 g. The number of claims handled by DIS from 2005 to 2013 on behalf of American General and/or US Life.

RESPONSE: US Life objects to Request No. 6 because Plaintiff has already exceeded seventy-five requests for production of documents, which is the number permitted by the Court's Scheduling Discovery Plan (Doc. No. 32), and has neither sought nor received leave of the Court to serve additional requests. US Life further objects to this request as premature. US Life stands on its objections.

(Doc. No. X).

B. The Obligation to Meet and Confer Prior Filing Discovery Motions

On October 11, 2019, the court issued an order in this case that, among other things, advised the parties of their obligations under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and District of North Dakota Civil Local Rule 37.1. (Doc. No. 30). Rule 37 authorizes parties to file motions to compel discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(1). It also requires that such motions “include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.” Id. Local Rule 37.1 imposes more stringent requirements or preconditions on such motions. Specifically, it provides:

D.N.D. Civ. L.R. 37.1.

In the instant motion, Plaintiff certifies that he made a good faith effort on December 17, 2020, at the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Mary Ann Helenecik, a corporate representative of USLI, to resolve this matter informally and without court involvement. (Doc. No. 191). He adds that this matter was a topic of discussion during the parties’ December 10, 2021, status conference with the court. (Id.).

In response, USLI asserts that Plaintiff is being economical with the truth and that he did not act in accordance with the either the letter or the spirit of the applicable procedural rules prior to filing the instant motion.

*7 (Doc. No. 206).

The discovery in this case has been fairly contentious. During the status conferences with the court (of which there have been many) there has been precious little on which the parties have been able to agree. The court is not prepared at this point to construe this as bad faith by any of the parties

Having reviewed the record, the court is not persuaded that Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his obligations under the applicable rules of procedure prior to filing the instant motion. It is apparent from the parties’ submissions there has been some discussion between them about the number of discovery requests being propounded by Plaintiff. And it is the number of discovery requests that is at the core of the present dispute. The court further recalls that it held status a conference with the parties on December 4, 2021, to discuss among other things, the number of discovery requests propounded by Plaintiff. Finally, the court notes that Plaintiff has certified that the parties have conferred as the Rule 37 requires. Thus, the court is satisfied that Plaintiff has complied with at least the technical requirements of Rule 37.

In sum, the court will not deny the instant motion due to a failure to meaningfully confer and/or participate. Instead, the court will move on to discuss whether Plaintiff has exceeded previously agreed upon limits to discovery.

C. Limits on the Number of Interrogatories and Requests for Production

As alluded to above, the parties filed a stipulated scheduling and discovery plan on October 16, 2019. Therein they agreed that, among other things, each side would be entitled to a maximum of 25 interrogatories and 75 requests for production. (Id.) The court adopted the parties’ scheduling and discovery plan without any additions or modifications. (Doc. No.).

Plaintiff does not dispute that he has to date served in excess of 25 interrogatories and 75 requests for production on the side. Rather, he takes the position that his actions were justifiable under the circumstances and that USLI must respond to his additional interrogatories and requests for production.

Not surprisingly, USLI disagrees. It takes the position that Plaintiff improvidently and without leave of court served it with discovery requests well in excess of the agreed upon number and that its objections to these discovery requests were therefore proper. See Ahhahverdi v. Regents of Univ. Of New Mexico, 228 F.R.D. 696, 698 (D.N.M. 2005). In so doing, it asserts that Plaintiff has not made the requisite showing of good cause to amend the scheduling/discovery order to increase the number of discovery requests permitted for each side or otherwise justify his excessive discovery requests. It further asserts that Plaintiff's claim of subterfuge on its part is specious and that the substantial discovery he undertook to identify the administrators of his claim was not borne of out necessity but rather his obstinance and misguided pursuit of AIG.

The court appreciates that Plaintiff has been prolific in terms of the number of discovery requests he has propounded. It also recognizes that he has exceeded the number of discovery requests originally contemplated. However, it is not inclined at this point to rigidly cap the number of interrogatories and requests for production at 25 and 75 respectively. At the December 4, 2020, status conference with the parties, it informed the parties that it would not foreclose additional discovery and, in the words of USLI, “invited” Plaintiff to seek leave from the strictures of the scheduling/discovery order.

*8 The court finds, in its discretion, that good cause exists and the circumstances otherwise sufficiently warrant some expansion of the number of discovery requests, encompassing the discovery requests presently at issue. In so doing, the court takes note of the time, number and complexity of the claims being asserted, and the joinder of additional parties as this case has progressed. The court shall focus on the substance of Plaintiffs’ additional discovery request, USLI objections to them, and whether USLI has to respond to them in whole or in part.

D. Objections to the Interrogatories and Requests for Production

As preliminary matter, the court can dispense Plaintiffs discovery requests as they pertain to DIS. DIS is no longer a party to this action. Consequently, USLI need not respond to Interrogatory No. 2 as it pertains to DIS nor respond to Interrogatory No. 3 and Request Nos. 5 and 6.

In regard to USI”s objections to Plaintiff's discovery requests on the grounds of irrelevance and inadmissability at trial, they are denied. The court is not inclined to reject Plaintiff's discovery requests on the grounds that the information he seeks is irrelevant or inadmissible at trial. As discussed above, the defining question is not whether the information sought is admissible at trial but whether it is in the scope of discovery, which is extremely broad. Colonial Funding Network, Inc. v. Genuine Builders, Inc., 326 F.R.D. 206, 211 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)). The court finds that Plaintiff has made a threshold showing of relevance for purposes of Rule 26(b). Conversely, USLI has not presented anything in opposition that outweighs the presumption in favor of broad disclosures.

In regard to USLI's objection to Plaintiff's discovery requests on the ground that they are premature, it is denied. Plaintiff has been granted leave to assert and is entitled to discovery in support of the claim for exemplary damages. His claims are not going to be tried piecemeal.

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's motion (Doc. No. 190) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. USLI shall supplement its responses to Plaintiff's Interrogatories 1 and 2 and produce the materials in Requests 1 through 4 that are in their custody and/or control by December 6, 2021. USLI need not respond to Interrogatory No. 2 as it pertains to DIS nor further respond to Interrogatory No. 3 and Request Nos. 5 and 6. Although it is unlikely to provide little solace to USLI, no additional discovery requests from Plaintiff will be permitted. No costs will be assessed in connection with the instant motion. As the court has confidence that USLI has both the will and ability to marshal the resources necessary to meet the aforementioned deadline, it is unlikely to look upon with favor requests for additional time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 16th day of November, 2021.