*1 THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant Progressive Select Insurance Company's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to First Request for Production. (ECF No. 26). Plaintiff Kevin Collazo filed a Response (ECF No. 29), to which Defendant filed a Reply (ECF No. 31). The matter has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge by the Honorable K. Michael Moore, United States District Judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the Magistrate Judge Rules of the Local Rules of the Southern District of Florida, to take all necessary and proper action as required by law with respect to any and all pretrial discovery matters. (ECF No. 4). The disputes were resolved at the hearing before the undersigned on May 6, 2024. This Order memorializes but does not alter any rulings made on the record. Plaintiff's Ore Tenus Motion to Compel better discovery responses to discovery requests is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff's Responses to First Request for Production (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part.

I. BACKGROUND

On June 27, 2019, Plaintiff was involved in an auto-accident with a tortfeasor who was underinsured; as a result, Plaintiff claims he suffered severe and permanent injuries. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff held an Uninsured and/or Underinsured Motorist (“UM”) policy issued by Defendant. On April 13, 2020, Plaintiff issued a demand to Defendant for a settlement at policy limits. On August 26, 2020, Plaintiff filed a civil remedy notice (“CRN”) against Defendant, demanding a settlement of policy limits and including medical bills accrued following the incident, which Defendant denied.

Ultimately, on October 30, 2020, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant (the “underlying lawsuit”). Defendant tendered the policy limits on June 24, 2021, which Plaintiff rejected. The Underlying Lawsuit for UM benefits proceeded to trial, where Plaintiff prevailed.

Plaintiff is suing Defendant now for statutory bad faith under section 624.155, Florida Statutes. Defendant asserts two affirmative defenses: (1) to the extent no duty arises under the insurance policy or Florida law, Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted; (2) Defendant is entitled to a set-off for all sums paid or waived in connection with the underlying action.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Plaintiff's Interrogatory Requests Pertaining to Claim Personnel Compensation

In the Court's prior Order, Plaintiff was directed to propound focused interrogatories regarding Defendant's claim personnel compensation, including bonuses, and the metrics used to determine the same. (ECF No. 24). Plaintiff noticed disputes as to Defendant's responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 8, marked confidential. (ECF No. 33). Upon reviewing Progressive's responses, the Court ruled that Progressive's answers are vague. Having reasoned that Defendant failed to articulate its own privacy interests with respect to internal metrics for employee bonuses, Plaintiff's Ore Tenus Motion to compel better answers is GRANTED.

*2 Defendant was ordered to amend its responses to Interrogatory Nos. 2 and 8 to articulate its internal metrics for deciding employee bonuses by Monday, May 20, 2024. Defendant is not compelled to disclose the names of individual employees or specific amounts of bonuses at this time.

B. Defendant's Motion to Compel

Defendant's Motion to Compel relates to Plaintiff's responses to Defendant's First Request for Production. (ECF No. 26).

Defendant's Motion identifies deficiencies with Plaintiff's responses to Request for Production Nos. 1 and 3–9. Defendant alleges the materials sought in the subject Requests are relevant to Plaintiff's willingness to settle the underlying case within the limits of the Progressive policy, the possibility of settlement within policy limits, reasonableness of medical expenses submitted by Plaintiff to Defendant, and the credibility of Plaintiff and his counsel.

Plaintiff objects to the Requests on two grounds. First, where the Request seeks documents between the accident and final judgment in the underlying lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks to limit the scope of discovery against him to only those documents generated between the accident date, and the date the underlying lawsuit was filed. Plaintiff avers that only Defendant's behavior is at issue.[1] Plaintiff's second ground for objection concerns Plaintiff's medical damages. Plaintiff argues that Defendant's discovery requests for production of his medical records are an improper attempt to relitigate Plaintiff's damages.

During oral argument, Plaintiff conceded that his argument for limiting the time-scope is premised on his factual argument: that Defendant's ability to settle the claim ended when Plaintiff filed suit. This is in dispute, and Plaintiff's willingness to settle even after the filing of the underlying lawsuit remains at issue. Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections are overruled. Plaintiff was therefore compelled to respond to Request for Production Nos. 1 and 3–8.

Regarding Request for Production No. 9, while Plaintiff's objection as to time-scope is overruled, the Court finds that the Request seeks irrelevant material even under the lenient Rule 26 standard. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Compel better responses to Request for Production Nos. 1 and 3–8 is GRANTED, however, its Motion to Compel a better response to Request for Production No. 9 is DENIED.

Plaintiff was ordered to amend its responses to Request for Production Nos. 1 and 3–8 by Monday, May 20, 2024.

DONE AND ORDERED in open court in Miami, Florida, on this 6th day of May, 2024.