Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Electrolux Home Products Inc.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Florence Division

February 15, 2019

Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company, and Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, Plaintiffs,
v.
Electrolux Home Products, Inc., Defendant.

          LIMITED PROTECTIVE ORDER

          R. Bryan Harwell United States District Judge

         Plaintiffs brought this products liability subrogation case asserting defective “ball-hitch” style clothes dryers designed, manufactured, and sold by Defendant caused fires at several properties insured by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs have filed a motion seeking a protective order regarding several topics identified in Defendant's Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. For the reasons herein, the Court grants in part and denies in part the motion and issues this Limited Protective Order.[1]

         Background

         Defendant identifies fourteen topics for examination in the amended Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6) deposition notice that it sent Plaintiffs. See ECF No. 48-2 at pp. 3-4. Plaintiffs object to the last six of these topics, which are (using the original numbering):

9. Allstate's decision to pursue its subrogation rights.
10. Allstate's underwriting policies, practices, and procedures relating to homeowner's insurance.
11. Warnings, instructions, information, or other documents Allstate provides or otherwise makes available to its insureds regarding the use, care, maintenance, and installation of residential clothes dryers.
12. Allstate's policies and procedures for identifying, tracking, and pursuing subrogation against “core manufacturers.” The term “core manufacturers” shall mean any entity identified, labeled, or listed by Allstate and/or any employee within its subrogation division as a “core manufacturer, ” or an entity thought of by Allstate as routinely being involved in a loss for purposes of determining whether or not to pursue a [] subrogation claim.
13. The role and responsibilities of Allstate's “subrogation advocates, ” including but not limited to pursuing subrogation against a “core manufacturer.” 14. Any and all policies and procedures concerning Allstate's decision to pursue subrogation of dryer fire claims, including but not limited to pursuing subrogation of claims against “core manufacturers” and the process of referring subrogation claims to Allstate's recovery office in Roanoke, Virginia.

Id. Plaintiffs filed the instant motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) seeking a protective order barring Defendant from eliciting deposition testimony regarding these six topics.[2] Defendant filed a response in opposition, and Plaintiffs filed a reply. See ECF Nos. 49 & 50.

         Legal Standard

         I. Scope and Limits of Discovery

         “Discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is broad in scope and freely permitted. At the same time, however, district courts have broad discretion in their resolution of discovery problems that arise in cases pending before them.” Carefirst of Md., Inc. v. Carefirst Pregnancy Ctrs., Inc., 334 F.3d 390, 402 (4th Cir. 2003) (internal citation, quotation marks, and brackets omitted); see Seaside Farm, Inc. v. United States, 842 F.3d 853, 860 (4th Cir. 2016) (“District courts exercise broad discretion over discovery issues.”). Rule 26(b) outlines the scope and limits of discovery:

Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows: Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.