1

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

In re: ELIZABETH H. COOMES :

 Debtor : Case No.: 17-13497-BFK

: Chapter 13

________________________________________ :

NOTICE OF MOTION AND HEARING 

 The Maryland Insurance Administration, by counsel, has filed an Objection and Motion 

for Protective Order and Points and Authorities in Support of Same pertaining to Debtor, 

Elizabeth Coomes’s (“Coomes”) Requests for Admissions.

Your rights may be affected. You should read these papers carefully and discuss 

them with your attorney, if you have one in this bankruptcy case. (If you do not have an 

attorney, you may wish to consult one.)

If you do not want the court to grant the relief sought in motion [objection], or if you 

want the court to consider yours views on the motion [objection], then within fourteen (14) days 

from the date of service of this motion [objection], you or your attorney must:

X File with the court, at the address shown below, a written response with 

supporting memorandum as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 9013‐1(H). 

Unless a written response and supporting memorandum are filed and served 

by the date specified, the court may deem any opposition waived, treat the 

motion as conceded, and issue an order granting the requested relief without 

further notice or hearing. If you mail your response to the court for filing, you 

must mail it early enough so the court will receive it on or before the expiration of 

the fourteen (14) day period.

The address of the clerk’s office is:

Clerk of Court

United States Bankruptcy Court

200 S. Washington Street

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

You must also send a copy to the persons listed below.

X Attend the hearing scheduled to be held on November 1, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. in 

Courtroom 1, United States Bankruptcy Court, 200 S. Washington Street, 

Alexandria, Virginia 22314. If no timely response has been filed opposing the 

relief requested, the court may grant the relief without holding a hearing.

Case 17-13497-BFK Doc 186 Filed 10/04/18 Entered 10/04/18 14:45:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 9
2

A copy of any written response must be sent to:

Ioannis Laskaris

Assistant Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

200 St. Paul Place, Suite 2700

Baltimore, Maryland 21202

Joseph A. Guzinski

Assistant United States Trustee

Office of the United States Trustee

1725 Duke St., Ste. 650

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

United States Trustee, Region 4

115 S. Union Street, Suite 210

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

If you or your attorney do not take these steps, the court may decide that you do not 

oppose the relief sought in the motion or objection and may enter an order granting that relief.

Date: October 4, 2018 /s/

IOANNIS LASKARIS

Assistant Attorney General

Maryland Insurance Administration

200 St. Paul Place, Suite 2700

Baltimore, Maryland 21202

(410) 468-2017 (Phone)

(410) 468-2086 (Fax)

Attorney for Maryland Insurance Administration

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this 4th day of October, 2018, electronically transmitted 

and/or mailed by first-class mail, postage prepaid, a true copy of the foregoing Notice of Motion 

and Hearing regarding the Maryland Insurance Administration’s Objection and Motion for 

Protective Order and Points and Authorities in Support of Same, to the following:

Thomas P. Gorman Elizabeth H. Coomes

Chapter 13 Trustee 7406 Carmine Street

300 N. Washington St., Ste. 400 Annandale, Virginia 22003

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Thomas P. Gorman, Esquire

Chapter 13 Trustee

300 N. Washington Street, Ste. 400

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Marcelo R. Michel, Esq.

Office of the Chapter 13 Trustee

300 N. Washington Street, Ste. 400

Alexandria, VA 22314

Case 17-13497-BFK Doc 186 Filed 10/04/18 Entered 10/04/18 14:45:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 9
3

Marcelo R. Michel, Esq. Elizabeth H. Coomes

Office of the Chapter 13 Trustee 800 Lancaster Avenue

300 N. Washington St., Ste. 400 VU Box No.: 3636

Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085

Joseph A. Guzinski, Esq.

Assistant United States Trustee

Office of the United States Trustee

1725 Duke St., Ste. 650

and it was also emailed to Elizabeth Coomes at the following email addresses:

e*******@yahoo.com and

l********@yahoo.com

 /s/

IOANNIS LASKARIS

Case 17-13497-BFK Doc 186 Filed 10/04/18 Entered 10/04/18 14:45:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 9
4

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Alexandria Division

In re: ELIZABETH H. COOMES :

 Debtor : Case No.: 17-13497-BFK

: Chapter 13

________________________________________ :

MARYLAND INSURANCE ADMINISTRATION’S OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR

PROTECTIVE ORDER AND POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF SAME

The Maryland Insurance Administration (“Administration”), by its attorneys, pursuant to 

Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, hereby files this Motion for a Protective Order

in response to Debtor, Elizabeth Coomes’s (“Coomes”) discovery requests. In support, the 

Administration states:

BACKGROUND

1. The Administration’s limited involvement in this case began when it was served 

by Coomes’s former counsel with a Motion to Enforce Automatic Stay Against the Maryland 

Insurance Administration. See ECM # 80. On June 20, 2018, the Administration filed an 

opposition to the Motion to Enforce. See ECM # 90.

2. Prior to the filing of Coomes’s Motion to Enforce, and since the filing of the 

Motion to Enforce, neither Coomes nor the Standing Chapter 13 Trustee served pleadings on the 

Administration. See ECM #s 154 and 173. Moreover, the Court has also not served the 

Administration with orders and hearing notices unrelated to the Motion to Enforce Automatic 

Stay. See ECM # 79. However, by virtue of filing the Opposition to the Motion to Enforce, 

undersigned counsel now receives all electronically filed documents.

3. On July 10, 2018, this Court dismissed with prejudice Coomes’s bankruptcy 

petition. See ECM # 98.

Case 17-13497-BFK Doc 186 Filed 10/04/18 Entered 10/04/18 14:45:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 9
5

4. Nevertheless, on September 21, 2018 and September 27, 2018, respectively, 

Coomes filed “Debtor’s First Request for Admissions” and “Debtor’s Second Request for 

Admissions” pursuant to Rule 36. See Exhibits 1 and 2.

5. On October 2, 2018, the Administration wrote to Coomes asking that she 

withdraw the discovery requests. See Exhibit 3. Those grounds are incorporated herein by 

reference. Undersigned counsel hereby certifies that he has in good faith conferred with Coomes 

in an effort to resolve this dispute without Court action.

6. The Administration requested that Ms. Coomes voluntarily withdraw the 

discovery requests to avoid the need for filing this motion. Although she responded, Coomes

refuses to withdraw the Requests for Admissions. See Exhibits 4 and 5.

ARGUMENT

7. The Administration is not a party in this matter. In fact, the Administration’s 

limited involvement in this case stems only from Coomes’s Motion to Enforce Automatic Stay 

Against the Maryland Insurance Administration, which was served upon the Administration by 

Coomes’s former counsel. The Administration filed an opposition to Coomes’s Motion to 

Enforce. On September 28, 2018, the Court denied Coomes’s Motion to Enforce. See ECM # 

161. As a non-party, Coomes’s Requests for Admissions are not appropriate. See Rule 36 (“A 

party may serve on any other party a written request to admit . . . .”)

8. Coomes erroneously relies on the Administration’s designation—“interested 

party”—to support her argument that requests for admissions are property. However, Coomes 

overlooks the fact that she has not treated the Administration as a party, as evidence by her 

failure to serve it with notices and motions. A cursory review of the pleadings in this case 

underscores this point. Prior to the filing of the Motion to Enforce the Automatic Stay, neither 

Case 17-13497-BFK Doc 186 Filed 10/04/18 Entered 10/04/18 14:45:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 5 of 9
6

Coomes nor the Standing Chapter 13 Trustee served the Administration with any pleadings. It 

appears that Coomes herself does not consider the Administration a party, as evidenced by her 

failure to serve the Administration with a copy of her “Supplement to Debtor’s Opposition to Ch. 

13 Trustee’s Motion to Quash and Opposition to US Trustee’s Motion for Protective Order and 

Motion for Expedited Hearing.” See ECF # 173, Certificate of Service.

9. Moreover, the Court has not notified the Administration of any hearings prior to 

the Administration’s involvement in the case related to the Motion to Enforce the Automatic 

Stay. Nor should it have. The Administration has no position with respect to the remaining 

issues in the case, namely Ms. Coomes’s Motion to Reconsider the Dismissal and her Motion to 

Transfer Venue. Simply put, the Administration has no interest in whether or not there is a 

confirmed plan. Likewise, the Administration takes no position on whether venue should be

transferred to Pennsylvania. Moreover, it appears that Coomes failed to list the Administration 

as a creditor in her initial filings and the Trustee has declined to administer Coomes’s revoked 

Maryland insurance producer license as part of the bankruptcy estate.

10. Interestingly, Coomes takes the position that “The MD Insurance Administration 

is a party. It is listed as a party in the court docket (an interested party).” Exhibit 4. However, 

she takes the opposite approach with respect to Thomas P. Gorman, Standing Chapter 13 

Trustee, who is listed in the court docket. Specifically, in “Debtor’s Motion to Reconsider 

Court’s Order Dated August 30, 2018 and Supplement to Motion to Reconsider Order 

Dismissing Case With Prejudice,” Coomes argues that Mr. Gorman “is neither a party in interest 

nor the US Trustee” and “[t]he standing Chapter 13 Trustee lacked statutory authority and lacked 

standing to move to dismiss Debtor’s case . . . .” ECM # 145 at 2. Coomes cannot have it both 

ways.

Case 17-13497-BFK Doc 186 Filed 10/04/18 Entered 10/04/18 14:45:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 6 of 9
7

11. It would be fundamentally unfair to treat the Administration like a non-party for 

all purposes except Coomes’s Requests for Admissions.

12. Even if Coomes were able to convince the Court that the Administration is a 

party, the Requests for Admissions are nevertheless improper. The time for conducting 

discovery is when the case is pending, not after the case has been dismissed with prejudice. 

Moreover, “A party may not seek discovery from any source before the parties have conferred as 

required by Rule 26(f) . . . .” Upon information and belief, no such conference has occurred. At 

the very least, the Administration was not invited to participate in such a conference, further 

underscoring its status as a non-party.

13. It is evident that Coomes is operating under the belief that the instant she files a 

motion to reconsider an order, she need not obey the order. See Exhibit 4 at 1 (“The Motion [to 

Enforce Automatic Stay] is still pending as there is a pending Motion to Reconsider the 9/18/18 

Order and I intend to file a[nother] Motion to Reconsider . . . .”). Not so. Until such time as her 

motions for reconsideration are granted, it is as though no motions had been filed at all. See 

Willemijn Houdstermaatschaapij BV v. Apollo Computer Inc., 707 F.Supp 1429, 1441 

(D.Del.1989); see also Arriaga v. City of New York, No. 06 CIV. 2362PKCHBP, 2007 WL 

582813, at *1 n. 1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb.23, 2007) (stating that “it is self-evident that a request for 

relief, without more, cannot operate to grant the relief sought.”)

14. The Requests for Admissions have no bearing on the limited issues and motions 

pending in this case. For example, Coomes’s seeks an admission of the following:

On or about May 8, 2014, Respondent through Counsel wrote to Debtor by email, 

“A surrender of your license does not constitute an adverse administrative action 

by the Commissioner.” A true copy of the aforesaid email is attached.

Exhibit 1, ¶ 7.

Case 17-13497-BFK Doc 186 Filed 10/04/18 Entered 10/04/18 14:45:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 7 of 9
8

Setting aside the fact that Coomes failed to provide a copy of the pertinent email, this request has 

nothing to do with whether her bankruptcy case should be dismissed or whether her case should 

be transferred to Pennsylvania. Rather, her requests seek to litigate issues of fact and law that 

were already decided against her. Coomes underscores this point in her email to October 3, 2018 

email to the Trustees, where she writes:

You’ve seen the requests for admissions propounded upon the MD Insurance 

Administration; I filed a copy with the Court (but just in case you have not 

reviewed them, they are attached). They are germane. If they answer the 

questions I propounded, it will prove prosecutorial misconduct and their “expert” 

witness lied. This is grounds to void the revocation.

Exhibit 6 (emphasis added).

15. Coomes and her counsel at the time chose to not call certain witnesses at the 

evidentiary hearing before the Maryland Insurance Commissioner (“Commissioner”). This 

Court is not the proper forum to void a state license regulatory action. This Court should reject 

Coomes’s attempt to collaterally challenge the Commissioner’s order against her.

16. Despite the Court’s October 1, 2018 Order limiting discovery, Coomes persists in 

her desire to obtain discovery from the Administration. In light of the Court’s recent orders 

limiting discovery, the Administration respectfully asks the Court in include Requests for 

Admissions to the list of discovery that is stayed until further order of this Court.

WHEREFORE, the Administration respectfully requests that the Court enter an order 

finding that the Administration is not a party subject to Requests for Admissions and protecting 

the Administration from further efforts at discovery absent further order of this Court. The 

Administration also asks for such other relief that the Court determines is fair and just.

Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN E. FROSH

Attorney General of Maryland 

Case 17-13497-BFK Doc 186 Filed 10/04/18 Entered 10/04/18 14:45:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 8 of 9
9

/s/

IOANNIS LASKARIS

Assistant Attorney General 

Maryland Insurance Administration

200 St. Paul Place, Ste. 2700

Baltimore, MD 21202

(410) 468-2017 (Phone)

(410) 468-2086 (Fax)

Attorney for Maryland Insurance Administration

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 4th day of October, 2018, a copy of the Maryland Insurance 

Administration’s Objection and Motion for Protective Order and Points and Authorities in 

Support of Same was electronically filed and also served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on 

the following:

Thomas P. Gorman Elizabeth H. Coomes

Chapter 13 Trustee 7406 Carmine Street

300 N. Washington St., Ste. 400 Annandale, Virginia 22003

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Marcelo R. Michel, Esq. Elizabeth H. Coomes

Office of the Chapter 13 Trustee 800 Lancaster Avenue

300 N. Washington St., Ste. 400 VU Box No.: 3636

Alexandria, Virginia 22314 Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085

Joseph A. Guzinski, Esq.

Assistant United States Trustee

Office of the United States Trustee

1725 Duke St., Ste. 650

and it was also emailed to Elizabeth Coomes at the following email addresses:

e*******@yahoo.com and

l********@yahoo.com

 /s/

IOANNIS LASKARIS

Case 17-13497-BFK Doc 186 Filed 10/04/18 Entered 10/04/18 14:45:01 Desc Main

 Document Page 9 of 9