Estate of Pressma v. ITM Twentyfirst Servs., LLC
Estate of Pressma v. ITM Twentyfirst Servs., LLC
2021 WL 9080104 (W.D. Ky. 2021)
October 13, 2021

King, Lanny,  United States Magistrate Judge

Failure to Produce
Proportionality
Download PDF
To Cite List
Summary
The U.S. Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff's motion for full and complete initial disclosures, ordering Defendant ITM TwentyFirst Services, LLC to disclose the person or entity identified in their Declaration by October 15, 2021. The Court noted that the information sought was relevant to the claims and defenses in the case, and that ESI was important to the case.
ESTATE OF NAOIMI PRESSMA PLAINTIFF
v.
ITM TWENTYFIRST SERVICES, LLC, et al. DEFENDANTS
CASE NO. 3:21-CV-0034-BJB-LLK
United States District Court, W.D. Kentucky
Filed October 13, 2021

Counsel

Isaac Binkovitz, Cozen & O'Connor, Philadephia, PA, James S. Bainbridge, Pro Hac Vice, Bainbridge Law Firm, Plymouth Meeting, PA, Matthew A. Taulbee, Reminger Co., LPA, Fort Mitchell, KY, Brian Scott Jones, Reminger Co., LPA, Louisville, KY, for Plaintiff.
Dustin E. Meek, Katherine L. Crosby, Tachau Meek PLC, Louisville, KY, for Defendant ITM TwentyFirst Services, LLC.
Casey L. Hinkle, Kaplan Johnson Abate & Bird LLP, Louisville, KY, for Defendant U.S. Bank National Association.
King, Lanny, United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

*1 On January 21, 2021, Judge Benjamin Beaton referred this matter to U.S. Magistrate Judge Lanny King for hearing and determining all pretrial matters, including non-dispositive motions.

 

On September 14, 2021, Plaintiff filed their motion for hearing. [DN 20]. On September 23, Defendant filed their response. [DN 21]. And on September 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed their reply. [DN 22]. On October 1, 2021 this Court granted that motion in part and denied in part. [DN 23].

 

On October 12, 2021, a conference was held with both parties represented by counsel wherein Plaintiff renewed their motion for Defendant ITM TwentyFirst Services, LLC to make full and complete initial disclosures. Id.

 

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks disclosure of the person or entity identified by Defendant as the recipient of the death benefits at issue in this case. [DN 9-1 at 3 (“ITM delivered the death certificate to the owner of the Policy”)]. First, the Sixth Circuit has repeatedly emphasized the broad discretion of the Court over the scope of discovery. See Neal v. Louisville Metro Gov't, 2005 WL 8175109 at n.1 (W.D. Ky. Dec. 15, 2005) (collecting cases). And, the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides for the scope and limits of discovery:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit. Information within this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.

 

In this case, Plaintiff argued, and Defendant did not dispute, that the statute of limitations to add the John Doe Defendant has very nearly lapsed. Plaintiff also argues that this information is relevant to their claims as this is a death benefit case and, as the Defendant delivered the death certificate to this person or entity, they have access to the information.

 

Defendant asserts this is irrelevant to the claim or defenses, but fail to argue that this would burden Defendant. However, this evidence is clearly relevant to the claims within this case, as stated above: this is a death benefits case, and they seek identifying information of the recipient of the death benefits. This is also relevant to Defendant's defense where they argue that it was this person or entity, and not Defendant, that submitted or delivered the death benefit claim to an insurance company. [DN 9 at 13, 9-1].

 

Finally, as in Allison v. Staples the Office Superstore East, Inc., Defendant “has failed to cite any case law within the district or this circuit that would constrain the ‘sound discretion of the trial court' on discovery matters.” 2015 WL 3849989, at *3 (W.D. Ky. June 22, 2015) (quoting Lestienne v. Layne, 2011 WL 4744912, *1 (W.D.Ky. Oct.7, 2011).

 

*2 Thus, it is HEREBY ORDERED that this Court's prior order, DN 23, is modified to GRANT IN PART Plaintiff's motion for full and complete initial disclosures. The Defendant shall disclose the person or entity identified in their Declaration, [DN 9-1], at paragraph 19 by Friday, October 15, 2021.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

October 12, 2021

 

c: Counsel of Record