Opinion
Civ. No. 99-0331, SECTION: E/2.
March 21, 2000.
ORDER AND REASONS
Defendant Admiral Insurance Company ("Admiral") has filed a motion to review the Magistrate Judge's order, contending that the Magistrate erred in his ruling on cross-motions to compel. Plaintiff Newpark Environmental Services, L.L.C. ("Newpark") opposes the motion.
Newpark filed suit against Admiral seeking reimbursement of certain funds it allegedly expended in connection with the defense and settlement of a claim for personal injuries brought by Michael Ardoin, an employee of Gulf South Environmental Consultants, Inc., against Newpark. Newpark's business was to remove oilfield products from containers and barges and to transfer them for disposal at its Morgan City, Louisiana facility. It entered into an agreement with Gulf South for Gulf South to provide water treatment services at the Newpark Morgan City plant. Newpark asserts that pursuant to the agreement with Gulf South, Gulf South was obligated to provide personnel and equipment to perform its work and was also contractually obligated to defend, indemnify, and hold Newpark harmless from claims for bodily injury and expenses related thereto. It also asserts that Gulf South had a professional liability and commercial general liability insurance policy underwritten by Admiral, and that Newpark was an additional assured under the policy. Newpark sued Admiral for coverage and reimbursement, and during the discovery process, motions to compel each other to provide supplemental answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for production of documents were filed by both Newpark and Admiral.
The Magistrate Judge entered a comprehensive Order and Reasons on these motions. Rec. Doc. No. 29, Feb. 24, 2000. From this Order and Reasons, Admiral seeks review, contending that the Magistrate Judge erred in his ruling on its motion to compel by (1) not granting its motion to compel production of other insurance policies; (2) granting Newpark's motion to compel supplemental responses to production request No. 5, seeking production of liability policy forms; (3) granting Newpark's motion to compel supplemental responses to production request No. 6, requesting certain documents related to liability insurance policy coverage; (4) granting Newpark's motion to compel supplemental responses to production request No. 9, seeking production of all insurance policies provided to Gulf South; (5) granting Newpark's motion to compel supplemental responses to production requests Nos. 11 and 12 seeking documents related to Admiral's defense and handling and/or investigation of the claim; (6) granting Newpark's motion to compel supplemental responses to production request No. 13 seeking documents, manuals, etc., relating to underwriting and/or claims handling procedures; (7) granting Newpark's motion to compel supplemental responses to Interrogatory No. 2 seeking information concerning the identities of persons responsible for the drafting and negotiation of the Admiral Insurance Policy in question; (8) granting Newpark's motion to compel supplemental responses to Interrogatory No. 4 seeking information related to whether Gulf South or any third person had made a claim against Admiral for coverage under the policy; (9) granting Newpark's motion to compel supplemental answers to Interrogatories Nos. 6, 7 and 8, seeking to discern whether Admiral is contending that Newpark is not named as an additional assured on the policy in question, whether Admiral is contending that it did not provide contractual liability coverage to Gulf South for the claim, and whether Admiral is contending that any provision or exclusion in the Gulf South policy acted as a bar or limitation of coverage; and (10) granting Newpark's motion to compel supplemental answers to Interrogatory No. 9 seeking information concerning the persons responsible for handling and/or investigating Newpark's claim against Admiral and documents relating to that investigation and claim handling.
The Magistrate Judge is vested with jurisdiction to consider pretrial discovery motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A) An aggrieved party may seek reconsideration of any pretrial matter if the mover demonstrates that the magistrate's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. A magistrate judge's order on pretrial discovery matters is clearly erroneous "when the reviewing court is left `left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.'" Fitzpatrick v. MCI Telecommunications Corp., 1997 WL 576391 (E.D. La. 1997), quoting United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 68 S.Ct. 525 (1948); Blair v. Sealift, Inc., 848 F. Supp. 670, 675 (E.D. La. 1994).
The Court has carefully reviewed the record, including the original motions to compel and oppositions, the Magistrate Judge's Order and Reasons, and the current motion to review the magistrate judge's order, opposition, and supplemental memoranda, as well as the discovery and responses. As to Admiral's argument that the Magistrate Judge erred by "omitting to grant" its motion to compel production of other insurance policies, this Court notes that Newpark responded to the request for other insurance policies by stating that "there is no other policy fitting this description." The Magistrate Judge did not err by "omitting to grant" the motion to compel, as he relied on the representation of Newpark that all responsive materials had been produced. If Admiral has good cause to believe that Newpark did not respond truthfully, Admiral should file a motion for sanctions. However, if the request was ambiguous and susceptible of an ambiguous response, Admiral should take other appropriate action, including seeking an opportunity to request the specific document it seeks.
As to the Magistrate Judge's rulings on the myriad aspects raised by Newpark's motion to compel, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge properly and according to law granted those aspects of the motion to compel on which additional responses were indicated, often limiting the responses and in some instances, ordering that a privilege log be prepared in order to protect Admiral's interests. Discovery under the Federal Rules is broad and Admiral's objections are without a basis in law or fact which would afford it relief.
Considering the entirety of Admiral's motion for review of the Magistrate Judge's order, this Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's Order and Reasons is not clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Court is not left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made, nor has it been presented with a legal basis upon which to conclude that the order was contrary to law. The Court, in fact, concludes that the Magistrate Judge painstakingly undertook the tedious task of reviewing the cross-motions to compel and oppositions thereto, as well as the underlying discovery and responses and supplemental responses, and rendered a fair and just opinion on the same.
Accordingly, for the above and foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion of Admiral Insurance Company to Review the Magistrate Judge's Order be and is hereby DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 21st day of March, 2000.