*1 Before the Court is Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (Motion) [Doc. No. 63], to which Defendant responded (Resp.) [Doc. No. 66].[1] Upon review of the parties' submissions, the Court makes its determination.

I. Background

This matter arises out of an insurance dispute. Plaintiff Susan Hanlon alleges that she was fraudulently induced into purchasing short-term medical insurance underwritten by Defendant. It is further alleged that Defendant engaged in bad-faith claims handling.

Relevant here, Plaintiffs move to compel discovery responses to three interrogatories and five requests for production. Defendant generally objects to the discovery requests as irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and vague.

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1) provides as follows:

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The scope of discovery under Rule 26(b)(1) is broad, but it “is not without limits and the trial court is given wide discretion in balancing the needs and rights” of the parties. Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511, 1520 (10th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). “When the discovery sought appears relevant, the party resisting the discovery has the burden to establish the lack of relevance by demonstrating that the requested discovery (1) does not come within the scope of relevance as defined under [Rule] 26(b)(1), or (2) is of such marginal relevance that the potential harm occasioned by discovery would outweigh the ordinary presumption in favor of broad disclosure.” Johnson v. Kraft Foods N. Am., Inc., 238 F.R.D. 648, 653 (D. Kan. 2006). But “when the request is overly broad on its face or when relevancy is not readily apparent, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the relevancy of the request.” Id.

III. Analysis

A. Interrogatory No. 16

Interrogatory No. 16 asks Defendant to “[i]dentify all persons, firms or companies involved in the processing of health conditions inquired about in the application and everyone involved in the medical underwriting of the application.” Motion at 2. It appears that through this interrogatory Plaintiffs specifically seek the identity “of the person that sold the insurance to [Plaintiff Susan] Hanlon.” Id. at 6. Defendant, in response, provides it has “made clear to Plaintiffs that ... [it] has not been able to obtain the identity of this individual.” Resp. at 3. Defendant adds that the unidentified sales agent was employed by a third-party entity. See id.

*2 “[Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 33 requires a party to respond to interrogatories only with information that is available to them.” XTO Energy, Inc. v. ATD, LLC, No. CIV 14–1021 JB/SCY, 2016 WL 1730171, at *22 (D.N.M. Apr. 1, 2016); see also Barron v. Nat'l Health Ins. Co., No. CIV-19-591-SLP, 2020 WL 9600579, at *1 (W.D. Okla. May 14, 2020) (“[A] party is to answer an interrogatory with the information ‘available’ to it ....”). In this instance, Plaintiffs ultimately have the burden of showing that Defendant has available to it the identity of the sales agent. See Boyd v. Hi Country Chevrolet, No. CIV 10-0602 RB/KBM, 2012 WL 13081437, at *1 (D.N.M. Feb. 28, 2012) (“[Responding parties] generally have a duty to produce requested records that are within their possession, custody, or control. The requesting party has the burden to show that the opposing party has the requisite control.” (internal citation omitted)). The Court finds Plaintiffs have not met that burden here.

B. Interrogatory Nos. 17 and 18 and Request for Production No. 8

Interrogatory No. 17 asks Defendant to identify all health insurance claims submitted to it or its third-party claims administrator during 2020 and 2021. Motion at 2. Interrogatory No. 18 asks Defendant to “[s]tate the claim number and policy/certificate number for all short-term health claims which were closed without payment for a lack of requested medical records during 2020 and 2021.” Id. at 3. Request for Production No. 8 asks Defendant to “[p]roduce a complete copy of Defendant's complaint register for the last five (5) years in Oklahoma containing the date of every such complaint and the involved insured with address and telephone number as such records are required to be maintained by Oklahoma law.” Id.

Through these discovery requests, Plaintiffs plan to show “Defendant's pattern and practice of improperly refusing to pay claims without fully investigating whether the claims are owed or not.” Id. at 7. Defendant counters that Plaintiffs seek irrelevant evidence “pertaining to the claims of strangers to the litigation that were handled at other times, under different insurance policies (containing different terms), and under an inconceivable number of individualized circumstances.” Resp. at 6. Defendant adds that Request for Production No. 8 would force it to “identify the names, claims and other information about non-parties that would violate their privacy rights” under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Id. at 5.

Looking first to Interrogatory No. 18, the Court concludes that it seeks relevant and discoverable information. While the Court recognizes that the interrogatory encompasses information on claims submitted by nonparty insureds under their individualized policies, the interrogatory is limited to the closure of short-term health claims, like Plaintiffs', under a specific circumstance—alleged “lack of requested medical records during 2020 and 2021.” Motion at 3. The Court finds Plaintiffs have “shown relevance to a ‘pattern’ theory of bad-faith conduct, which is generally permitted under Oklahoma law.” Reibert v. CSAA Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., No. 17–CV–350–CVE–JFJ, 2018 WL 279348, at *6 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 3, 2018) (collecting cases). As for Interrogatory No. 17, the Court finds the requested information is necessary to place the preceding information in proper context.

The Court reaches a similar conclusion on Request for Production No. 8, as it finds the request will “provide relevant information about Defendant's claims handling practices.” Providence Church, Inc. v. GuideOne Ins., No. CIV-06-1201-D, 2008 WL 11338501, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 18, 2008) (ordering insurer's production of complaint register). To the extent Defendant contends that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act prohibits production, the Court finds the argument meritless. See Elk City Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Phila. Indem. Ins. Co., No. CIV-18-196-D, 2019 WL 7195613, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 26, 2019); Jones v. Farmers Ins. Co., No. CIV-11-159-R, 2012 WL 12863976, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Feb. 29, 2012).

C. Request for Production Nos. 9, 10, 18, and 22

*3 Request for Production No. 9 asks for copies of “all agent training materials, manuals, videos and sales scripts which in any way train or instruct the agent or producer on how to market and sell insurance and complete applications for insurance.” Motion at 4. Request for Production No. 10 asks for copies of “all sales brochures and outlines of coverage pertaining to the insurance policies Plaintiffs purchased from Defendant.” Id. Request for Production No. 22 asks for copies of “all ‘cheat sheets,’ also referred to ... as ‘benefit grids,’ ” in use by Defendant's third-party administrator in 2020 and 2021. Id. at 6.

Looking first to Request for Production No. 9, the Court finds it overly broad in that it is not limited to the time period and subject matter relevant to this litigation. As for Request for Production No. 10, Defendant directs Plaintiffs to previously produced documents that it maintains are responsive to the request. See Resp. at 3. Moreover, Defendant provides that it “is in the process of obtaining and producing the information requested in [Request for Production] No. 22.” Id. at 4 n.2. Plaintiffs do not address why these responses are deficient, and it appears that Defendant has responded (or is in the process of responding) to these requests.

Lastly, Request for Production No. 18 asks for copies of “all depositions previously given by Defendant's corporate representative Jacob Armpriester.” Motion at 5. Upon review, the Court finds this prior testimony irrelevant to this action. See Randall v. Gov't Emps. Ins. Co., No. CIV-09-166-M, 2009 WL 10671732, at *3 (W.D. Okla. Oct. 26, 2009) (finding “any testimony provided by corporate representatives in other cases that involved completely different parties, circumstances and facts than those present in the instant action” irrelevant and undiscoverable in bad faith insurance action).

IV. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel [Doc. No. 63] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of February, 2024.