Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00367/USCOURTS-alsd-1_15-cv-00367-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Account Receivable

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PAUL MICHAEL COLEMAN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 1:15-00367-WS-N

)

UNUM GROUP CORP. and )

PAUL REVERE LIFE INS. CO., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

This action is before the Court on the following: Plaintiff’s Motion to 

Determine Sufficiency and/or Further Compel Under Rule 37 (doc. 86); Plaintiff’s 

Motion for Leave to File Discovery Motion Out of Time (doc. 87); Defendant’s Motion 

to Compel Authorization of Release of Social Security Records (doc. 83); responses 

thereto (Docs. 85, 96) and attached documents.1 Oral argument was held before the 

undersigned Magistrate Judge on August 12, 2016. Present were Forrest S. Latta, 

Esq., counsel for Plaintiff, and James S. Williams, Esq., counsel for Defendants.

A. Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Sufficiency and/or Further Compel

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File (Doc. 87) this discovery motion out of date 

is GRANTED. Upon consideration, and for reasons more fully stated on the record 

at the motion hearing (see doc. 97), it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to 

 1 Under S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(b), this discovery motion has been referred to the undersigned 

Magistrate Judge for disposition in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), FED. R. CIV. P. 72(a), 

and S.D. Ala. GenLR 72(a)(1) & (a)(2)(S).

Case 1:15-cv-00367-WS-N Document 99 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 4
2

Determine Sufficiency and/or Further Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED 

in part, as follows:

1. The Motion Compel is DENIED as to Request for Production No. 4 of 

the Second Request for Production (seeking “[a]ll documents 

continuing communications by Jack McGarry to any Unum employee 

on the subject of how claims should be handled with Unum’s closed 

block book of individual disability insurance.”). Defendant Unum 

Corporation asserted that it has “conducted a diligent search and 

made reasonable inquiry for documents,” without finding any 

documents responsive to the request. Doc. 86 at 4. Plaintiff has made 

no showing that this statement is untrue.2

1. The Motion to Compel is DENIED as to Request for Production No. 

14 of the Third Request for Production (seeking “Management 

Duration Guidelines for 2012, 2013 and 2014”). Defendant Unum 

Corporation has asserted that no such document exists. Doc. 86 at 5; 

see also Doc. 97. Again, Plaintiff has made no showing that 

Defendant’s statement is untrue.

2. The Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part, and DENIED in 

part, as to Request for Production No. 8 of the Third Request for 

Production (seeking “Benefit Center Recognition Programs Summary 

 

2 Plaintiff further maintains that a footnote in an unrelated case out of the Middle District of 

Florida which refers to six emails from Jack McGarry is evidence that defendant is not

forthcoming in its responses. For the reasons stated on the record the undersigned disagrees.

Case 1:15-cv-00367-WS-N Document 99 Filed 08/15/16 Page 2 of 4
3

Brochure for 2012, 2013, 2014.”). Plaintiff’s counsel notes that it has 

already produced the brochure which was in effect in the first 

quarter of 2013 (see Doc. 86-3 at 11) and asserts that no iteration of 

the document was in effect after that date. Doc. 96 at 6. Plaintiff is 

ORDERED to produce, on or before Thursday, August 18, 2016, 

the Benefit Center Recognition Programs Summary Brochure which 

was in effect in 2012.

3. The Motion to Compel is GRANTED as to Requests for Production 

Nos. 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, and 17 of the Third Request for Production 

regarding production of responsive 2012 documents. Plaintiff filed 

his claim with Defendant Unum Corporation in December 2012. See, 

e.g., Doc. 86-2. Thus, 2012 internal documents may be relevant to the 

disposition of Plaintiff’s claim with Unum Corporation. Defendant is 

ORDERED to produce, on or before Thursday, August 18, 2016, 

all 2012 documents responsive to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 

7, 10, 11, and 17 of the Third Request for Production.

B. Defendants’ Motion to Compel Authorization of 

Release of Social Security Records

Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Authorize Release of Social Security 

Records (Doc. 83) is GRANTED. Plaintiff at no point objected to the production of 

social security records or to the subpoena issued to the Social Security 

Administration seeking those records. Doc. 83 at 1-3. Further, Plaintiff’s counsel 

Case 1:15-cv-00367-WS-N Document 99 Filed 08/15/16 Page 3 of 4
4

acknowledges no reason—other than a lack of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

specifically requiring production—why the social security records should not be 

produced. Doc. 85 at 1-2. The Plaintiff is ORDERED to authorize, on or before 

Thursday, August 18, 2016, the release of all records in the possession of the 

Social Security Administration pertaining to Plaintiff’s application for or receipt of 

social security benefits.

DONE and ORDERED this the 15th day of August 2016.

/s/ Katherine P. Nelson

KATHERINE P. NELSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00367-WS-N Document 99 Filed 08/15/16 Page 4 of 4