*1 Before the Court is Plaintiff Christian Chesson's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Opposed Motion for Expedited Consideration (Doc. 23). Defendant QBE Specialty Insurance Company (“QBE”) opposes the motion. Doc. 27. Plaintiff has replied. Doc. 31.

This action arises out of damage to Plaintiff's home as a result of Hurricane Laura on August 27, 2020, and Hurricane Delta on October 9, 2020. Doc. 1-1, p. 13. On September 5, 2020, QBE, the issuer of the insurance policy that covered Plaintiff's property at 124 Beach Blvd, Cameron, LA 70631 on the dates of both disasters, conducted an inspection of the Plaintiff's property and found $32,259.43 in recoverable damages, less the deductible and depreciation. Id., p. 12; doc. 23-3, p. 8. Plaintiff's relevant policy limits are $285,000 for dwelling, $5,000 for other structures, and $100,000 for personal property. Doc. 23-6, p. 1. On August 2, 2021, Plaintiff received payment of $34,249.43. Doc. 23-3, p. 12. On August 12, 2021, Plaintiff's appraiser found $435,605.05 in damages to Plaintiff's property. Id., p. 12. Additionally, Plaintiff had a professional engineer complete a report detailing the damages caused by the high winds and rain to the Plaintiff's property. Id. On August 27, 2021, Plaintiff filed suit in the 14th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Calcasieu, Louisiana, alleging that QBE improperly adjusted claims, misrepresented pertinent facts, and failed to pay claims in violation of Louisiana Revised Statutes sections 22:1892 and 22: 1973. Doc. 1-1, pp. 12–14. On October 29, 2021, QBE removed the case to this Court under 42 U.S.C. § 4072 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the Plaintiff's claim stems from a Write-Your-Own Program carrier participating in the U.S. Government's National Flood Insurance Program (“NFIP”) pursuant to the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (“NFIA”). Doc. 1, p. 1. On May 3, 2022, QBE conducted a second inspection of the Plaintiff's property and found $197,177.67 in covered damages. Doc. 23-3, p. 13. On May 31, 2022, QBE sent a $159,178.52 “supplemental” payment to Plaintiff. Id. On September 28, 2022, Plaintiff propounded discovery on QBE. Id., p. 14. On October 28, 2022, QBE responded. Id. On December 9, 2022, QBE supplemented its responses. Id. Jury trial is set for May 22, 2023. Doc. 4.

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

*2 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Rule 37(a) governs motions to compel discovery responses and provides, as applies here, that a party may move to compel a discovery response if the opposing party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33 or fails to produce a document requested under Rule 34. Id. at 37(a)(3)(iii)–(iv). For purposes of this rule, “an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to respond.” Id. at 37(a)(4). If the motion is granted or if the requested discovery is only provided after the motion is filed, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising that conduct, or both to pay the movant's reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including attorney's fees.” Id. at 37(a)(5)(A).

At the outset, Plaintiff's counsel certifies that his counsel has made a good faith attempt to confer and resolve this discovery issue with QBE's counsel prior to urging this motion. Doc. 23.

A. Discovery of Reserve Information

Plaintiff claims that QBE failed to produce requested reserve information. Doc. 23-3. Moreover, Plaintiff maintains that certain documentation and communications relative to QBE's loss reserves on his claim are relevant, discoverable information and must be produced to show that QBE failed to adequately adjust his claim and acted in bad faith. Id. QBE counters that because the reserves set by QBE cannot possibly lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Plaintiff's motion to compel reserve information must be denied. Doc. 27.

For bad faith claims under sections 1892 and 1973, “an insurer who does not tender unconditionally a reasonable payment, a figure over which reasonable minds could not differ, will be subject to penalties and attorney fees.” Gaspard v. S. Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., 155 So. 3d 24, 31 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014); cf. Molony v. USAA Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co., 708 So. 2d 1220, 1226 (La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998) (“The reasonableness of USAA's tender is not gauged by simply comparing it with its reserves, but is determined on a consideration of the facts known to the insurer prior to trial and whether reasonable minds could not differ on the amount that is due in light of those facts.”). The Court finds, particular to this case, the reserve amount is not discoverable. This part of the motion is denied.

B. Request for Production No. 1, 2, 3, and 27

Here, Plaintiff requests QBE produce all information received from or sent to Erich A. Matissen relative to the claim. Doc. 23-4. Also, they seek information regarding his competency and estimating program. Id. QBE responds that it has previously provided the requested documents, bates labeled QBE_ID-000311-QBE_ID-000313, QBE_ID-000409 through QBE_ID-000478, and QBE_ID-CONF-000094 through QBE_ID-000484. Id. Still, Plaintiff complains that QBE failed to produce Mr. Matissen's licensure to provide services in Louisiana. QBE is ordered to verify that they have produced their entire file and any communications regarding Mr. Matissen. Then within 7 days of this order, OBE shall confer with and provide to Plaintiff an update and any additional information, if any. Plaintiff should consider deposing Mr. Matissen if further discovery is needed.

C. Request for Production No. 4, 5, 6, and 28

Plaintiff requested that QBE produce all information received from or sent to Madsen, Kneppers & Associates, Inc., a/k/a MKA International, Inc. related to Plaintiff's claim. Id. Also, Plaintiff's seek information regarding its competency and estimating program. Id. QBE responded that some of the information is protected by attorney-client privilege and/or the anticipation of litigation privilege; that it previously produced documents responsive to the request including the Gostyla Construction Estimating & Appraisal Service repair cost estimate, the Garry J. Johnson engineering report, and the documents bates labeled QBE_ID-000311-QBE_ID-000313, and QBE_ID-0000224-QBE_ID-0000309, QBE_ID-000409 through QBE_ID-000536, QBE_ID-CONF-000094 through QBE_ID-000484. Id. Plaintiff maintains that QBE failed to provide MKA International, Inc.'s, licensure to provide services in Louisiana, correspondence between MKA and QBE, documents and communications regarding MKA's estimations and QBE's analysis of its findings. Id. QBE is ordered to verify that they have produced their entire file and any communications regarding MKA. Then within 7 days of this order, OBE shall confer with and provide to Plaintiff an update and any additional information, if any. Plaintiff should consider deposing a representative of MKA if further discovery is needed.

D. Request for Production No. 7, 8, 9, and 29

*3 Plaintiff requested all information received from or sent to Matthew Piazza, John Heyl, and Patrick Fecke. Id. Also, Plaintiff seeks information regarding their competency and estimating programs. Id. QBE responded that this request is duplicative to Request for Production No. 4; that it provided documents responsive to this request including the Gostyla Construction Estimating & Appraisal Service repair cost estimate; the Garry J. Johnson engineering report; and previously produced the following documents bates labeled: QBE_ID-000311-QBE_ID-000313, QBE_ID-0000224-QBE_ID-0000309, QBE_ID-000409 through QBE_ID-000536, and QBE_ID-CONF-000094 through QBE_ID-000484. Id. Still, Plaintiff maintains that QBE failed to produce information related to Mr. Piazza, Mr. Heyl, and Mr. Fecke's respective licensures to provide services in Louisiana, correspondence between these adjusters and QBE, documents and communications regarding their respective estimations and QBE's analysis of their findings. Id. QBE is ordered to verify that they have produced their entire file and any communications regarding Matthew Piazza, John Heyl, and Patrick Fecke. Then within 7 days of this order, OBE shall confer with and provide to Plaintiff an update and any additional information, if any. Plaintiff should consider deposing Matthew Piazza, John Heyl, and Patrick Fecke if further discovery is needed.

E. Request for Production No. 10, 11, 12, and 30

Plaintiff requested all information received from or sent to Mark Naessig. Id. Also, Plaintiff seeks information regarding his competency and estimating program. Id. QBE claims that this request is duplicative of Nos. 4 & 7 and that it provided documents responsive to the request, including Gostyla Construction Estimating & Appraisal Service repair cost estimate, the Garry J. Johnson engineering report, and previously produced the documents bates labeled QBE_ID-000311-QBE_ID-000313, QBE_ID-0000224-QBE_ID-0000309, QBE_ID-000409 through QBE_ID-000536, QBE_ID-CONF-000094 through QBE_ID-000484. Id., pp. 10–11. Still, Plaintiff contends that QBE failed to produce documentation and communications including, but not limited to, Mr. Naessig's licensure to provide services in Louisiana, correspondence between Mr. Naessig and QBE, documents and communications regarding Mr. Naessig's estimations and QBE's analysis of his findings. Id., p. 11. QBE is ordered to verify that they have produced their entire file and any communications regarding Mr. Nassig. Then within 7 days of this order, OBE shall confer with and provide to Plaintiff an update and any additional information, if any. Plaintiff should consider deposing Mr. Nassig if further discovery is needed.

F. Request for Production No. 13

Plaintiff requested that QBE produce all information received from or sent to Misty Scarletto. Id. Also, Plaintiff seeks information regarding her competency and estimating program. Id. QBE responded that the information was produced in documents bates labeled QBE_ID-000854 through QBE_ID-000872 and QBE_ID-CONF-000094 through QBE_ID-000484. Id., p. 14. Plaintiff still contends that QBE failed to produce information regarding Misty Scarletto's licensure to provide services in Louisiana, correspondence between Ms. Scarletto and QBE, documents and communications regarding Ms. Scarletto's estimations and QBE's analysis of her findings. Id. QBE is ordered to verify that they have produced their entire file and any communications regarding Misty Scarletto. Then within 7 days of this order, OBE shall confer with and provide to Plaintiff an update and any additional information, if any. Plaintiff should consider deposing Misty Scarletto if further discovery is needed.

G. Bonus/Incentive Plans Information

Plaintiff argues that QBE failed to produce information related to several of its employee's bonuses or incentive plans paid relative to profitability, loss ratio, and combined ratio as a result of low payments to insureds to determine whether QBE and its adjusters/employees directly benefited from QBE's abusively low initial payment of $34,239.43 to Plaintiff. Doc. 23-3, p. 19. QBE maintains that it does not possess these documents. Doc. 27, p. 13–14. The Court finds that the Plaintiff's above requested information is not relevant to its claims; therefore, this part of the motion is denied.

H. Information Related to Plaintiff's Appraiser and Professional Engineer

*4 Plaintiff claims that, in response to Request for Production Nos. 24 & 25, QBE failed to turn over information related to its analysis of Plaintiff's Appraiser Peter Gostyla's estimate and his Professional Engineer Gary Johnson's report. Doc. 23-3, p. 20. QBE counters that Plaintiff seeks to compel what it does not possess, and that QBE has responded providing Plaintiff with reports and relevant documents from its own engineer on the subject. Doc. 27, p. 14. QBE is ordered to verify that they have produced their entire file and any communications regarding related to its analysis of Mr. Gostyla's estimate and Mr. Johnson's report. Then within 7 days of this order, OBE shall confer with and provide to Plaintiff an update and any additional information, if any.

I. Information Relative to OBE's Underwriter

Plaintiff argues that QBE failed to produce its underwriter's file but acknowledges that QBE produced a 7-page report from its underwriter. Doc. 31, p. 6–7. QBE avers it has produced the requested documents and in its reply Plaintiff agrees. Doc. 27, p. 14. This request is now moot.

J. Reinsurance Information

Plaintiff complains that QBE failed to produce information related to any broker or agent who sold Plaintiff an insurance policy or any information relative to QBE's reinsurance. Doc. 23-3, p. 21. QBE argues that it has already produced this information as indicated by documents bates labeled QBE_ID-000143 through QBE_ID-000149. Doc. 27, p. 14–15. QBE is ordered to double check all sources to confirm it has located and produced all information related to its reinsurance agreements and any related communications. Then within 7 days of this order, QBE shall confer with and provide to Plaintiff an update and any additional information pertaining to its reinsurance agreements and any related communication, if any.

K. Attorney's Fees

Plaintiff requests that QBE pay his reasonable expenses incurred in making this motion, including attorney's fees, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37 (a)(5)(A). Doc. 23. QBE contends that the Court should not award attorney's fees even in the event Plaintiff's motion is granted in part and denied in part. Doc. 27, p. 16. The Court sees no basis at this time that QBE has acted in bad faith during discovery or has been in violation of this Court's orders.

Plaintiff Christian Chesson's Motion to Compel Discovery Responses and Opposed Motion for Expedited Consideration (Doc. 23) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as described in the reasons stated above.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in Chambers on this 10th day of February 2023.