Beltway Paving Co. v. Prudential Life Ins. Co.
Beltway Paving Co. v. Prudential Life Ins. Co.
2023 WL 11826541 (D. Md. 2023)
December 19, 2023
Quereshi, Ajmel A., United States Magistrate Judge
Summary
The court denied the defendant's motion for sanctions but ordered the production of relevant electronic mail communications and minutes/records of meetings regarding life insurance policies covering Mr. Williams or the Promissory Note. The defendant must provide an affidavit stating specific search terms used and the number of responsive emails, and either produce all responsive emails or meet and confer with the plaintiff to determine appropriate search terms.
BELTWAY PAVING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff
v.
PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants
v.
PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants
Civil Case No. 21-cv-0264-BAH
United States District Court, D. Maryland
Signed December 19, 2023
Counsel
Eden Joanna Brown Gaines, Brown Gaines LLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.Christina Marleen Carroll, Dentons U.S. LLP, Washington, DC, Tony K. Lu, Pro Hac Vice, Dentons U.S. LLP, Boston, MA, for Defendant Pruco Life Insurance Company.
Brian Patrick Donnelly, Werther & Mills, LLC, Rockville, MD, Laurin H. Mills, Werther & Mills, LLC, Alexandria, VA, for Defendant Lisa M. Moore.
Quereshi, Ajmel A., United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER
*1 Pending before the Court are Defendant Lisa M. Moore's First Motion to Compel Discovery Responses from Plaintiff Beltway Paving Company, Inc. (ECF No. 90) and the same Defendant's Second Motion to Compel and Motion for Discovery Sanctions (ECF No. 110). On December 19, 2023, the Court held oral argument on the pending Motions. This order memorializes the Court's rulings during the argument.
Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 110) is denied other than its request for costs and fees associated with filing its Motion to Compel electronic mail communications from Beltway Paving. The latter request is taken under advisement pending further direction and actions below. It is undisputed that relevant e-mail communications existed which Beltway Paving failed to produce. To determine whether sanctions are appropriate, a Beltway Paving representative shall provide an affidavit on or before January 5, 2024 stating: 1) the specific search terms that Beltway Paving used to search its internal servers for communications concerning the insurance policy at issue in this case; 2) how many emails Beltway Paving had produced as of October 4, 2023; 3) the number of emails currently responsive to those terms in Beltway Paving's email system; and 4) the number of emails currently in Ms. Williams “AOL” e-mail account responsive to those terms. In addition to filing the affidavit, Beltway Paving shall either: 1) produce all responsive emails; or 2) if it believes that producing all emails responsive to those terms would be unduly burdensome, it shall meet and confer with Defendant Moore regarding appropriate search terms to narrow the emails further. Defendant Moore shall propose search terms to the extent it disagrees with Beltway Paving's proposed terms. To the extent that the parties disagree as to whether production would be burdensome or the appropriate search terms, they may seek further guidance from the Court utilizing the Court's informal discovery dispute resolution procedures.
Defendant's First Motion to Compel (ECF No. 90) is granted, in part, and denied, in part. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court orders that
- electronic mail communications in Beltway Paving's possession, custody, and control regarding life insurance policies concerning Mr. Williams, including, but not limited to, the Policy at issue in this case are relevant. Beltway Paving shall produce any such communications subject to a specific claim of burden. Any claim of burden shall be substantiated with specific facts regarding the number of responsive documents and/or the number of pages at issue;
- any minutes or other records of any meetings of directors or shareholders of Beltway Paving are relevant and shall be produced if they concern: 1) any life insurance policies covering Mr. Williams; or 2) the Promissory Note;
- organizational documents for Beltway Paving are relevant and proportionate to the needs of the case to the extent that they concern the Promissory Note or identify the ownership of Beltway Paving at the time the Promissory Note was executed. However, Beltway Paving need not produce duplicative documents regarding its ownership status at the time;
- Beltway Paving shall either admit or deny Request for Admission Nos. 4 and 5, but may do so subject to any objection it maintains;
- Documents and communications related to the Stock Redemption Agreement are relevant and must be produced subject to a specific assertion of burden based on the number of responsive emails that would have to be produced. Beltway Paving need not respond to the interrogatory asking for their identification as the information is more properly dealt with through a request for the production of documents. Additionally, Beltway Paving may withhold any documents that are attorney work product or protected by the attorney client privilege. If Defendant Moore is dissatisfied with the production, she may seek a privilege log regarding any documents withheld on the basis of these protections and the Court shall resolve any disputes as to whether any protection applies;
- Beltway Paving shall identify all individuals other than attorneys that were involved in the negotiation of the Stock Redemption Agreement; and
- Beltway Paving shall identify all individuals with management responsibility for Beltway Paving, other than attorneys, that were aware of the pendency of this Matter at the time the Stock Redemption Agreement was executed. On or before January 5, 2024, Beltway Paving shall provide separately to the Court for in-camera review the names of any attorneys, of which it has knowledge, who were aware of the Matter at the time the Stock Redemption Agreement was executed. Counsel who have entered an appearance in this matter need not be named, as they will not be disclosed. Although the Court is not ordering any disclosure beyond the in-camera review at this point, the in-camera review is necessitated by Beltway Paving's affirmative provision of a declaration from one of its previous counsel regarding the circumstances of the Stock Redemption Agreement in support of its position in the case. ECF No. 58-2. The Court cautions Defendant Moore that while she may have an interest in testing the assertions in the Declaration, to the extent that doing so would require infringing upon the attorney-client privilege, any such interest may be outweighed by other important considerations. However, before the Court can determine whether any such balancing is even necessary, it must know whether any other individuals in fact have such knowledge – i.e., whether in fact there is a dispute that requires resolution.
All other requests are denied without prejudice. The Court reminds the parties of the importance of communicating respectfully with each other, as well as the Court.