UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY CO.

OF CONNECTICUT, et al.,

Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-CV-14261-DT

vs.

 DISTRICT JUDGE MARIANNE O. BATTANI

NATIONAL FAIR HOUSING MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

ALLIANCE, INC.,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO

COMPEL PLAINTIFFS TO RESPOND TO DEFENDANT’S FIRST SET OF

DISCOVERY REQUESTS (DOCKET NO. 27)

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Compel filed on August 13,

2009. (Docket no. 27). Plaintiffs have responded. (Docket no. 30). The Defendant has filed a

Reply Brief. (Docket no. 37). The parties have filed a Joint Statement of Resolved and Unresolved

Issues. (Docket no. 42). The motion has been referred to the undersigned for decision pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). (Docket no. 29). A hearing was held on October 23, 2009 at which

counsel for both parties appeared. The matter is now ready for ruling.

Plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action on October 6, 2008 to determine whether they

had a duty to defend or indemnify the Defendant in an underlying action brought by Century 21

Town & Country. (Docket no. 1). Defendant filed a counterclaim against Plaintiffs for breach of

contract. Defendant served its First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production on April 17,

2009. (Docket no. 27). Plaintiffs responded to the discovery requests on May 18, 2009. (Docket

-1-

2:08-cv-14261-MOB-MKM Doc # 44 Filed 10/28/09 Pg 1 of 5 Pg ID 1195
no. 1.). In their response, Plaintiffs produced copies of their insurance policies but provided no other

information or documents. The Joint Statement of Resolved and Unresolved Issues states that the

parties have been unable to resolve issues relating to Interrogatories Nos. 1-11 and Requests for

Production Nos. 2-18.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b) permits the discovery of nonprivileged information

relevant to any party’s claim or defense if it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

admissible evidence. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(3)(B) authorizes the Court to compel

discovery if a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33, or fails to properly

respond to a request submitted under Rule 34.

Plaintiffs argue that this lawsuit should be determined through the application of three clear

and unambiguous provisions in their policies. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on

September 1, 2009 seeking judgment as a matter of law based on the language of their policies.

(Docket no. 31). The Motion for Summary Judgment is scheduled to be heard before the district

court on December 16, 2009. Plaintiffs contend in the instant motion that the extrinsic evidence

sought by Defendant in its discovery requests is neither relevant nor reasonably calculated to lead

to the discovery of admissible evidence. Plaintiffs further contend that the Defendant’s discovery

should only be permitted if the district court finds that the language of the insurance policies is

ambiguous.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) requires parties to address the subjects on which

discovery is needed and whether discovery should be limited or conducted in phases. The parties

filed their Rule 26(f) report on February 20, 2009. (Docket no. 21). The report does not state that

discovery should be limited or bifurcated in any manner. Plaintiffs now seek to limit discovery after

-2-

2:08-cv-14261-MOB-MKM Doc # 44 Filed 10/28/09 Pg 2 of 5 Pg ID 1196
discovery requests have been properly served on them by Defendant. Plaintiffs do this by asserting

nearly every available ground for objecting to a discovery request to each and every request made

by Defendant, and by failing to provide any information or documents other than their insurance

policies.

The Court finds that Interrogatories Nos. 1-11 are relevant to the claims and defenses in this

action. Specifically, Interrogatories Nos. 1-6, 9, and 11 ask Plaintiffs to identify individuals with

knowledge of the Plaintiffs' insurance policies and the claims and defenses in this action.

Interrogatories Nos. 7-8 ask Plaintiffs to explain the factual and/or legal basis for their Affirmative

Defenses asserted in Plaintiffs’ Answer to Defendant's Counterclaim. Interrogatory No. 10 asks

Plaintiffs to identify and provide information for each person they expect to call as an expert witness

at trial. The Court further finds that Requests for Production Nos. 9 and 11-13 are relevant to the

claims and defenses in this action, because they ask for documents related to Plaintiffs’ review of

their indemnity and defense obligations and Defendant’s claim for coverage. 

The Court will order Plaintiffs to serve on Defendant on or before November 6, 2009 signed,

complete written answers to Interrogatories Nos. 1-9 and 11. With respect to Interrogatory No. 3,

which asks for the name and address of all persons responsible for procuring and underwriting

Plaintiffs’ policies, Plaintiffs are ordered to respond only for the years 2000 to present. The Court

will further order Plaintiffs to supplement their response to Interrogatory No. 10 at the time they file

their witness list and no later than November 2, 2009. The Court will further order Plaintiffs to

produce responses and documents to Requests for Production Nos. 9 and 11-13 on or before

November 6, 2009.

The Court will deny without prejudice Defendant’s Motion to Compel responses to Requests

-3-

2:08-cv-14261-MOB-MKM Doc # 44 Filed 10/28/09 Pg 3 of 5 Pg ID 1197
for Production Nos. 2-8 and 10, which pertain to more extensive document requests related to

underwriting, drafting history, amendments, internal manuals and guidelines, communications, and

document retention policies. These requests may be re-served before the close of discovery and after

the district court rules on the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment if necessary.

The Court will further deny without prejudice as premature Defendant’s Motion to Compel

responses to Requests for Production Nos. 14-17, which ask for expert witness qualifications, expert

reports, and documents Plaintiffs intend to rely upon at trial. The Court will deny Defendant’s

Motion to Compel Request for Production No. 18, because it asks for all documents related to

Plaintiffs’ responses to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories and would not produce responsive

documents.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel Plaintiffs to Respond

to Defendant’s First Set of Discovery Requests is GRANTED in part and Plaintiffs will serve the

following on Defendant on or before November 6, 2009:

1. Written and signed answers to Interrogatories Nos. 1-9 and 11, except that in relation to

Interrogatory No. 3 Plaintiffs’ response will be limited to the years 2000 to present.

2. A written and signed supplemental response to Interrogatory No. 10 on or before

November 2, 2009.

3. Written and signed responses to and all documents requested by Requests for Production

Nos. 9 and 11-13.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel is DENIED without

prejudice as to Requests for Production Nos. 2-8, 10, and 14-17.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel is DENIED with

-4-

2:08-cv-14261-MOB-MKM Doc # 44 Filed 10/28/09 Pg 4 of 5 Pg ID 1198
prejudice as to Request for Production No. 18.

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the parties have a period of ten days from

the date of this Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be

permissible under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Dated: October 28, 2009 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this Opinion and Order was served upon Van Jenkins and

Counsel of Record on this date.

Dated: October 28, 2009 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Case Manager

-5-

2:08-cv-14261-MOB-MKM Doc # 44 Filed 10/28/09 Pg 5 of 5 Pg ID 1199