IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY

COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

vs. Civil Action 2:11-CV-63

Judge Sargus

Magistrate Judge King

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Defendants Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and National

Casualty Company (collectively, “Nationwide”) have filed a motion to

compel. Doc. No. 55.1 Nationwide represents that “three issues

remain” for the Court’s consideration, Doc. No. 56, p. 1, but does not

correlate the issues it raises with specific discovery requests. 

Instead, Nationwide refers in passing to particular discovery

requests, Doc. No. 56, pp. 5 n.2, 6 n.3 & 4, but does not otherwise

incorporate these particular requests when discussing the merits of

its position. For example, Nationwide does not identify which

discovery requests are impacted by arguments involving privilege, the

common interest doctrine, and the access to records clause.2

Similarly, while Nationwide seeks an order compelling supplemental

answers to ten (10) interrogatories requesting “basic information,”

1The supporting memorandum appears as Doc. No. 56.

2The Court is unable to review all of the discovery responses because

Nationwide provided only partial copies of these responses, omitting several

pages. See Exhibits 1 and 2, attached to Affidavit of Melissa M. Weldon, Doc.

No. 57. 

Case: 2:11-cv-00063-EAS-NMK Doc #: 72 Filed: 05/10/12 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Doc. No. 56, pp. 1, 5-6, 10, Nationwide does not specify what each

interrogatory seeks and why the Court should compel production as to

each interrogatory. Instead, Nationwide generally describes five

types of information covered by these ten interrogatories, id. at 5,3

and asserts in conclusory fashion that “[a]s a matter of fundamental

fairness, Travelers should be required to disclose this basic

information.” Id. at 10. See also Nationwide’s Reply Memorandum in

Support of Motion to Compel, Doc. No. 66, p. 3 (“This basic

information about its [plaintiff’s] own claims must be provided, and

in light of its ongoing failure to do so, Travelers should be ordered

to answer these interrogatories.”). 

Accordingly, based on the present record, Nationwide’s motion to

compel, Doc. No. 55, is DENIED without prejudice to renewal– in a

motion filed, if at all, no later than May 22, 2012 – on certain

conditions. Specifically, if it chooses to file another motion to

compel, Nationwide must correlate the substance of its arguments with

particular discovery requests. In doing so, Nationwide may, where

appropriate, incorporate by reference specific arguments raised in its

original motion to compel, Doc. No. 55. However, Nationwide is

ADVISED that conclusory arguments raised in its original motion will

not be well-taken.

Plaintiff has filed a motion to disregard or for leave to file a

sur-reply, complaining that Nationwide raised for the first time in

3It is not immediately apparent to the Court which specific

interrogatories match up to Nationwide’s generalized descriptions. Moreover,

it appears that at least two of these interrogatories, Nos. 19 and 20 relating

to witnesses, are not even referenced in Nationwide’s generalized description. 

Stated differently, Nationwide provides no argument or basis for seeking an

order compelling these interrogatories.

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00063-EAS-NMK Doc #: 72 Filed: 05/10/12 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Nationwide’s reply in support of the motion to compel a new discovery

demand and a new argument (the common interest doctrine) and submitted

new evidence. Doc. No. 68. Over Nationwide’s objection, Doc. No. 70,

plaintiff’s motion is well-taken. The motion for leave to disregard

or for leave to file a sur-reply, Doc. No. 68, is GRANTED to the

extent that plaintiff will have the opportunity to respond to these

issues in the event Nationwide files a renewed motion to compel

consistent with this Order.

Nationwide has filed a motion to amend the scheduling order. 

Doc. No. 71. If plaintiff intends to respond to this motion, it must

do so no later than May 18, 2012.

Finally, the Court notes that the parties have scheduled a

mediation to be held on May 18, 2012. The parties are ORDERED to

report on the status of settlement discussions, without divulging the

substances of those discussions, no later than May 22, 2012.

May 10, 2012 s/Norah McCann King (Date) Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

3

Case: 2:11-cv-00063-EAS-NMK Doc #: 72 Filed: 05/10/12 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Case: 2:11-cv-00063-EAS-NMK Doc #: 72 Filed: 05/10/12 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>