 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lund v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company12/6/2001
ion because it failed to file its responses within the time provided by Court rules. St. Paul acknowledged it had indeed failed to file timely responses, but its counsel also asserted that the claimant's responses to discovery were untimely. St. Paul further noted that its attorney had on previous occasions "gratuitously and informally allowed Petitioner additional time to answer discovery in this case, and put frankly, Respondent expected the same courtesy in return." (Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery and Respondent's Motion for Protective Order at 3.) That response struck a cord with petitioner's counsel, who then withdrew the argument. (Reply Brief in Support of Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery at 1-2.) This sort of collegiality should have prevailed before the flurry of motions.
B. Employer's Files and Information
Claimant propounded interrogatories and requests for production asking St. Paul to provide information and files from Industrial. St. Paul interposed a general objection to the requested discovery on the ground that St. Paul is the "real party in interest" and its counsel "does not have access" to the employer's files other than those documents contained in St. Paul's claims file. My consideration of the objection generates enough heat to melt snow on a cold Montana winter day. Whether or not the employer is a party in this case, it has a duty to cooperate with the insurer. The insurer can insist that the employer fulfill that obligation. If the employer fails to cooperate in providing information or documents related to a workers' compensation injury , then this Court will make the employer a party to this action, subject the employer to the Court's discovery rules, and impose sanctions if it fails to comply with those rules. I trust that this will resolve this specific objection and make it clear that this Court abhors technical games of this sort.
That said, the Court must consider still St. Paul's allegation that claimant has already obtained the documents it requests during discovery in another civil action she has brought against the employer. (Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery at 5.) Claimant in reply says that she has some but not all of the documents but nonetheless insists on full discovery. (Reply Brief in Support of Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery at 2, 4.)
As to documents the claimant has already obtained in another proceeding, what purpose is served by producing them a second time in this proceeding? If there is an issue as to the authenticity of the documents, or their completeness, then counsel can surely address and resolve those questions between themselves. If they cannot resolve authenticity issues, the Court's Scheduling Order expressly provides for an award of costs if an objection to authenticity is not justified. Discovery done simply for discovery's sake is a waste of time and money. I condemn this sort of senseless discovery and decline to order production of documents which claimant has already obtained.
As to information and documents not previously produced, St. Paul shall use its best efforts to obtain the information and documents from Industrial. If Industrial fails to cooperate, then the Court will join it as a party, order it to respond to the petition, and enforce its discovery rules against it.
C. Claims File
In response to interrogatories and requests for production, St. Paul produced much of its claims file. (See Exs. A through C to the Petitioner's Motion to Compel Discovery.) However, it declined to furnish a number of documents based upon attorney work product and attorney-client privileg
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Montana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|