FDIC v. Floridian Title Grp., Inc.
FDIC v. Floridian Title Grp., Inc.
2020 WL 13310024 (S.D. Fla. 2020)
November 2, 2020
Louis, Lauren F., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The Court ordered Hiscox to produce its corporate representative for deposition and Hiscox filed an Emergency Motion for Protective Order in response. The Court denied the Motion as premature, ordering Hiscox to serve First American with specific objections to each topic it challenges by October 28, 2020. The deposition of Hiscox's Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representative is based on ESI.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, as Receiver for Bank United, FSB, Plaintiff,
v.
FLORIDIAN TITLE GROUP, INC., and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants
v.
FLORIDIAN TITLE GROUP, INC., and FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants
CASE NO. 12-cv-21890-MORENO/LOUIS
United States District Court, S.D. Florida
Entered on FLSD Docket November 02, 2020
Counsel
Andrew P. Cummings, Weiner & Cummings, P.A., Miami, FL, George Thomas Breur, Mark, Migdal & Hayden LLC, Miami, FL, Orlando J. Villalba, Pro Hac Vice, Mortgage Recovery Law Group, Glendale, CA, for Plaintiff.Tanaz Salehi, Salehi Boyer Lavigne Lombana, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant Hiscox Insurance Company, Inc.
Louis, Lauren F., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
*1 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Hiscox Insurance Company's Emergency Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 271) to which Defendant First American Title Insurance Company responded to (ECF No. 272). The Honorable Federico A. Moreno, United States District Judge, has referred this case to the undersigned for proceedings supplementary (ECF No. 259). The Court heard arguments on the Motion on October 27, 2020.
A. Background
On February 28, 2018, the Court entered a judgment in favor of Defendant First American Title Insurance Company (“First American”) and against Defendant Floridan Title Group, Inc. (“Floridian”), which is insured by Hiscox Insurance Company (“Hiscox”) (ECF No. 248). The Court granted First American's motion to commence proceedings supplementary, pursuant to Fla. Sta. § 56.29, and directed Hiscox to file an affidavit “stating why the Professional Liability Errors and Omissions Insurance Policy Number MPL 1187457.12 issued to Floridian Title Group, Inc., does not provide coverage for the Final Judgment in this case ...” (ECF No. 250). Hiscox filed its affidavit in compliance with the Court's order (ECF No. 258).
First American then moved to compel the deposition of Hiscox's Rule 30(b)(6) corporate representing (ECF No. 261), which this Court granted (ECF No. 263). The Court ordered Hiscox to produce its corporate representative for deposition by no later than November 5, 2020 (ECF No. 265).
On October 6, 2020, First American served a deposition notice, attaching a list of topics on which the witness should be prepared to testify. Two days later, counsel for Hiscox sent an email to opposing counsel objecting to “several areas” of the noticed topics and asked opposing counsel to agree to “pare down the areas of inquiry so we can move forward” (ECF No. 271-6). Counsel for First American responded in a one-line email: “No I will not, file your motion” (id.). Hiscox filed the subject Motion.
B. Discussion
Hiscox's Motion for Protective Order is denied as premature. As noted above, the Motion was filed before Hiscox even served objections to the noticed topics. The “better procedure to follow for the proper operation of [Rule 30 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] is for a corporate deponent to object to the designation topics that are believed to be improper and give notice to the requesting party of those objections, so that they can either be resolved in advance or otherwise. The requesting party has the obligation to reconsider its position, narrow the scope of the topic, or otherwise stand on its position and seek to compel additional answers if necessary, following the deposition.” Direct Gen. Ins. Co. v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., No. 14-20050-CIV, 2015 WL 12745536, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 29, 2015). Because Hiscox has not served specific objections to each topic it challenges, it is impossible for the Court or First American to identify which topics Hiscox takes issue with and why, thus making resolution of this dispute without court intervention less likely.
*2 Alternatively, the Motion could be denied as procedurally deficient. Local Rule 7.1(a)(3) requires a movant to “confer (orally or in writing), or make reasonable effort to confer (orally or in writing), with all parties or non-parties who may be affected by the relief sought in the motion in a good faith effort to resolve by agreement the issues to be raised in the motion.” The Rule cautions that a motion may be denied for noncompliance. See Versilia Supply Serv. SRL v. M/Y WAKU, No. 18-62975-CIV, 2020 WL 4015490, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 16, 2020) (denying motion to compel for failure to comply with conferral requirements of Local Rule 7.1(a)(3)). Sending a single email that generally challenges the scope of the noticed topics (as opposed to advancing specific challenges to each noticed topic at issue) does not amount to good faith conferral under the Rule 7.1(a)(3). See Reilly v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., No. 15-23425-CIV, 2016 WL 10646561, at *11 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2016) (recognizing that reasonable conferral efforts requires more than sending one communication to opposing counsel, and movant should have made additional efforts including a follow-up email or phone call to opposing counsel).
Similarly, a response that rejects any attempt to confer fails to comply with the Local Rule. “It is the letter and spirit of the discovery rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this Court that counsel work together on discovery matters. Counsel should be in touch personally to resolve discovery disputes and it should be a rare occasion when the court is called upon to resolve such disputes.” Versilia Supply, 2020 WL 4015490, at *2 (quoting Taylor v. Fla. Atl. Univ., 132 F.R.D. 304, 305 (S.D. Fla. 1990)) (emphasis added). Counsel for First American has likewise failed to participate in good faith conferral through his unequivocal refusal to reconsider the scope of the noticed topics.
At the hearing on the Motion, counsel for both sides recognized the value of meaningful conferral and have agreed to a schedule within which to serve objections and attempt to resolve any dispute arising therefrom. Hiscox shall serve First American with specific objections to each topic it challenges by no later than close of business on October 28, 2020. The Parties will engage in good faith conferral and meaningfully attempt to resolve or narrow the issues.
The Court will conduct a telephonic status conference on November 3, 2020 at 11:00 AM. Telephonic appearance may be made by dialing 1 (866) 434-5269, entering access code 9978869 followed by the (#) sign, and entering security code 5710 followed by the (#) sign. Any remaining disputes may be resolved by the Court at that time; however, as observed above, the Court may defer ruling on relevance objections unless and until the deposition is completed and, with the benefit of testimony taken, either side seeks appropriate relief at that time.
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 271) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida this 2nd day of November, 2020.