Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitdiscoverymotioncase lawcivil procedure

lawsuitmotioncivil procedure

Related Cases

Mt. Hawley Ins. Co. v. Felman Production, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 609

Facts

Felman Production, Inc. filed a lawsuit against its insurers for claims related to property damage and business interruption. The insurers moved to compel Felman to produce documents from ten individuals, referred to as 'Privat representatives,' who were not employed by Felman but were believed to have managed and controlled Felman's business operations. Felman opposed the motion, arguing that the requested documents were not within its control and that the additional discovery was burdensome and duplicative.

Issue

Whether the documents held by the Privat representatives are within Felman's control and thus discoverable under Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule

Under Rule 34, a party must produce documents that are in its possession, custody, or control, which includes documents held by non-party entities if the party has the ability to obtain them.

Analysis

The court analyzed the relationship between Felman and the Privat representatives, concluding that Felman had control over the documents held by these individuals due to their significant involvement in Felman's business operations. The court referenced previous case law that broadly interprets 'control' in corporate contexts, indicating that the nature of the relationship between Felman and the Privat representatives justified the discovery of the requested documents.

Conclusion

The court granted the motion to compel in part, ruling that the non-privileged documents of the Privat representatives were discoverable as they were within Felman's control.

Who won?

The insurers prevailed in part, as the court ruled that Felman must produce the non-privileged documents from the Privat representatives, establishing that these documents were relevant to the case.

The insurers prevailed in part, as the court ruled that Felman must produce the non-privileged documents from the Privat representatives.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Sliech-Brodeur v. Com., 447 Mass. 1004, 849 N.E.2d 806

Kinkel v. Cingular Wireless LLC, 223 Ill.2d 1, 857 N.E.2d 250, 306 Ill.Dec. 157

In re Livolsi, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2005 WL 3675967, 2005 A.M.C. 1070

Otis & Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 57 F.Supp. 680

Healthcare Advocates, Inc. v. Harding, Earley, Follmer & Frailey, 497 F.Supp.2d 627