SWEARINGEN
v.
PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion to compel and for in-camera inspection, ordering partial production of documents, and granted defendant's motion for a protective order, canceling plaintiff's noticed depositions.
Plaintiff Mary Swearingen is involved in litigation with Defendant Progressive Express Insurance Company. Defendant filed motions to compel production…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PRIVILEGE LOG (Doc. No. 29) FILED: May 21, 2025
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
MOTION: PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE
COMPANY'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
(Doc. No. 31) FILED: June 5, 2025
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED.
Pursuant to prior notice, see Doc. No. 33, a hearing was held with counsel today, June 26, 2025, on the above-styled motions. Doc. No. 36. Following argument of counsel, and for the reasons set forth on the record at the hearing, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Progressive Express Insurance Company's Motion to Compel and Motion for In-Camera Inspection of Documents Withheld on Jeffrey M. Byrd's Privilege Log (Doc. No. 29) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant's request for in camera inspection is GRANTED, as the materials were previously submitted to the Court for in camera review. See Doc. No. 34. Following in camera inspection, the motion is further GRANTED to the extent that certain of the withheld documents must be produced. See Humbertson v. Progressive Select Ins. Co., No. 8:23-cv-1709-MSS-AAS, 2024 WL 3426856 (M.D. Fla. July 15, 2024); Robles v. GEICO Indem. Co., No. 8:19-cv-1293-T-60AAS, 2020 WL 1529968 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2020). It is ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall produce to Defendant the following:
a. The first three sentences of the first page of document Bates Nos. SDT Byrd 0621 – 0627. The remainder shall be redacted as privileged. b. Bates Nos. SDT Byrd 0628 - 0629. c. The first three sentences of the first page of document Bates Nos. SDT Byrd 0634 – 0640. The remainder shall be redacted as privileged. d. Bates Nos. SDT Byrd 0641 – 0643. e. Bates Nos. SDT Byrd 0645 – 0647.
2. Progressive Express Insurance Company's Motion to Compel and Motion for In-Camera Inspection of Documents Withheld on Jeffrey M. Byrd's Privilege Log (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED in all other respects.
3. Progressive Express Insurance Company's Motion for Protective Order (Doc. No. 31) is GRANTED. The depositions noticed by Plaintiff of Susan Soard for July 28, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. and Morris Steele on July 30, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. (Doc. No. 31-2) are hereby CANCELED.
4. Counsel are reminded of their obligation to engage in civil and cooperative discovery. Middle District Discovery (2021) § (I)(A)(1).
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on June 26, 2025.
Leslie Hoffman Price
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Swearingen v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 2024 WL 3426856 (M.D. Fla. 2025)…ourt for in camera review. See Doc. No. 34. Following in camera inspection, the motion is further GRANTED to the extent that certain of the withheld documents must be produced. See Humbertson v. Progressive Select Ins. Co., No. 8:23-cv-1709-MSS-AAS, 2024 WL 3426856 (M.D. Fla. July 15, 2024); Robles v. GEICO Indem. Co., No. 8:19-cv-1293-T-60AAS, 2020 WL 1529968 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2020). It is ORDERED that within ten (10) days of the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall produce to Defendant the following: -2-…1 / 2
-
Wilkins v. Progressive Select Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2025)…of 8 PageID 5292 “In Florida, the question of whether an insurer has acted in bad faith in handling claims against the insured is determined under the ‘totality of the circumstances' standard.” Robles v. GEICO Indem. Co., No. 8:19-cv-1293-T- 60AAS, 2020 WL 1529968, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 31, 2020) (citing Berges v. Infinity Ins. Co., 896 So. 2d 665, 680 (Fla. 2004)). “Although a bad-faith claim derives from and emphasizes the duty of the insurer to the insured, the conduct of a claimant and the claimant's atto…1 / 3
-
Swearingen v. Progressive Express Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2025)…*5 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2020); McCoy, 2019 WL 5391104, at *4; Gonzalez v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., No. 8:15-cv-0240-T-30TBM, 2016 WL 7732310, at *3 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2016); see also Humbertson v. Progressive Select Ins. Co., No. 8:23-cv-1709-MSS- AAS, 2024 WL 3426856 (M.D. Fla. July 15, 2024); Denno v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., No. 6:22-cv-624-GAP-LHP, 2022 WL 14022291 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 24, 2022).⁴ ⁴ The decisions Plaintiff attaches and/or cites to in support of her arguments are distinguishable and therefore unpersua…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Swearingen v. Progressive Express Ins. Co., 2024 WL 3426856 (M.D. Fla. 2025)