e-TeleQuote Ins., Inc. v. Mayberry
e-TeleQuote Ins., Inc. v. Mayberry
2023 WL 7043310 (M.D. Fla. 2023)
October 26, 2023
Jung, William F., United States District Judge
Summary
The court granted the motion to compel Plaintiff's discovery responses and document production. Plaintiff must supplement its responses to certain requests, amend and serve supplemental written discovery responses, and produce documents as specified in the order. The court reserved its ruling on the request for attorneys' fees.
Additional Decisions
E-TELEQUOTE INSURANCE, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
Aubrey “A.D.” MAYBERRY, Alisa Cravey, Rich Budwell, Jonathan Moore, et al., Defendants
v.
Aubrey “A.D.” MAYBERRY, Alisa Cravey, Rich Budwell, Jonathan Moore, et al., Defendants
CASE NO. 8:22-cv-01222-WFJ-JSS
United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Tampa Division
Signed October 26, 2023
Counsel
Peter W. Zinober, William Edward Grob, Marielly Abzun, John Christopher Getty, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff.Alicia Howell Koepke, Amy Lea Drushal, Eric S. Koenig, Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O'Neill & Mullis, Tampa, FL, Elysse Victoria Gorney, Trenam Law, Tampa, FL, D. Porpoise Evans, Littler Mendelson, P.C., Miami, FL, for Defendants Aubrey Mayberry, Alisa Cravey, Rich Budwell, Jonathan Moore.
Elysse Victoria Gorney, Trenam Law, Tampa, FL, for Defendant Mario Gutierrez.
Alicia Howell Koepke, Amy Lea Drushal, Trenam, Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O'Neill & Mullis, Tampa, FL, Elysse Victoria Gorney, Trenam Law, Tampa, FL, for Defendant John Tellez.
Lindsay Dennis Swiger, Lori K. Mans, Jackson Lewis, PC, Jacksonville, FL, for Defendants MyPlanAdvocate Insurance Services, Inc., MyPlanAdvocate Insurance Solutions, Inc.
Mario Gutierrez, Universal City, TX, Pro Se.
John Tellez, Laredo, TX, Pro Se.
Jung, William F., United States District Judge
ORDER ON MYPLANADVOCATE DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF'S DISCOVERY RESPONSES AND DOCUMENT PRODUCTION (DKT. 156)
*1 This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Discovery Responses and Document Production and Incorporated Memorandum of Law (Dkt. 156) (the “Motion”) filed by Defendants, MyPlanAdvocate Insurance Solutions, Inc. and MyPlanAdvocate Insurance Services, Inc. (collectively “MPA” or “Defendants”), against Plaintiff, e-TeleQuote Insurance, Inc. (“ETQ” or “Plaintiff”). After considering the Motion, the positions of the parties, and the law, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the motion is GRANTED as follows:
1. On October 3, 2023, MPA filed the Motion.
2. On October 11, 2023, Plaintiff served Plaintiff's Supplemental Responses and Objections to Defendants’, MyPlanAdvocate Insurance Services, Inc. and MyPlanAdvocate Insurance Solutions Inc., First Request for Production of Documents and documents labeled ETQ-001841-ETQ-002214 (which includes documents withheld on the basis of privilege). Plaintiff supplemented its responses to Requests Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, and 27 and identified the additional documents that were produced on October 11, 2023 in response to those Requests (or stated that there were no responsive records). In addition, in an October 18, 2023 email correspondence, counsel for Plaintiff provided a written explanation of the search parameters used to locate records responsive to these Requests. The issues raised in MPA's Motion related to Requests Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 13, and 27 (Dkt. 156 at pp. 7-9) have been resolved as described in this paragraph.
3. Also on October 11, 2023, Plaintiff served its Privilege Log as of October 11, 2023, thereby resolving the issues raised in MPA's Motion related to the Privilege Log (Dkt. 156 at pp. 16-19). This Order does not address the sufficiency of ETQ's Privilege Log, nor the application of any privilege to any record. MPA reserves the right to bring issues, if any, related to ETQ's Privilege Log to the Court for resolution in accordance with the applicable rules of procedure and the law.
4. No later than Tuesday, November 7, 2023, ETQ shall amend and serve supplemental written discovery responses to Defendants’ First Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff and produce documents as follows:
a. With respect to Requests Nos. 14-19 (Dkt. 156 at pp. 9-10), Plaintiff maintains the attorney client and work product privileges that were timely asserted, but Plaintiff will supplement its responses to Requests Nos. 14-19 to identify which documents within its production relate to each document request, produce any additional non-privileged documents responsive to these Requests, and/or state specifically that no responsive documents have been found if that is the case.
b. With respect to Requests Nos. 34-36, and 51 (Dkt. 156 at pp. 9-10), Plaintiff will withdraw its objections and supplement its responses to these Requests to identify which documents within its production relate to each document request, produce all non-privileged documents responsive to these Requests, and/or state specifically that no responsive documents have been found if that is the case.
*2 c. With respect to Request No. 11 (Dkt. 156 at pp. 10-11), Plaintiff produced its “YTD June-2023” Profit and Loss Statement on October 18, 2023 (Bates No. ETQ-002215). Plaintiff will supplement its response to Request No. 11 to identify which documents within its production relate to this document request.
d. With respect to Request No. 42 (Dkt. 156 at pp. 12-14), Plaintiff will withdraw its objections and supplement its response to Request No. 42 to identify which documents within its production relate to this document request, produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, and/or state specifically that no responsive documents have been found if that is the case.
e. With respect to Request No. 49 (Dkt. 156 at pp. 14-16), Plaintiff will withdraw its objections and supplement its response to Request No. 49 to identify which documents within its production relate to this document request, produce all non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, and/or state specifically that no responsive documents have been found if that is the case.
5. No later than Tuesday, November 7, 2023, ETQ shall serve written discovery responses to Defendants’ Second Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff and produce documents (Dkt. 156 at pp. 19-20) as follows:
a. Plaintiff will respond to Request No. 1 by producing all documents responsive to this Request as narrowed to the time period of 2019 through the present and identifying which documents within its production relate to this document request and/or stating specifically that no responsive documents have been found if that is the case.
b. Plaintiff will respond to Request No. 4 by producing all documents responsive to this Request as narrowed to the time period of 2019 through the present and identifying which documents within its production relate to this document request and/or stating specifically that no responsive documents have been found if that is the case.
c. Plaintiff will respond to Request No. 5 by producing all non-privileged documents responsive to this Request, identifying which documents within its production relate to this document request and/or stating specifically that no responsive documents have been found if that is the case, and serving an amended Privilege Log to the extent any documents are withheld on the basis of the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.
d. Plaintiff will respond to Request No. 6 by producing all documents responsive to this Request and identifying which documents within its production relate to this document request and/or stating specifically that no responsive documents have been found if that is the case.
e. Plaintiff will respond to Request No. 7 by producing all documents responsive to this Request and identifying which documents within its production relate to this document request and/or stating specifically that no responsive documents have been found if that is the case.
f. Plaintiff will respond to Request No. 8 by producing all documents responsive to this Request and identifying which documents within its production relate to this document request and/or stating specifically that no responsive documents have been found if that is the case.
*3 g. Plaintiff will respond to Request No. 9 by producing all documents responsive to this Request and identifying which documents within its production relate to this document request and/or stating specifically that no responsive documents have been found if that is the case.
6. The Parties disagree on MPA's request for attorneys’ fees; this Court reserves its ruling on MPA's request for attorneys’ fees.
7. The hearing set at 12:30 p.m. on October 27, 2023 is cancelled.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Tampa, Middle District of Florida, United States District Court this 26th day of October, 2023.