TOMS
v.
STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

M.D. Fla. | 2022-07-12
No. 8:15-cv-240
451 F. Supp. 3d 1304 District Court, M.D. Florida (2022) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases

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.

Holding

The court granted defendant's motion for leave to serve a subpoena on a third party after the close of fact discovery.

Facts & Procedural History

Defendant State Farm Life Insurance Company sought to serve a subpoena on John Hancock Life Insurance Company for documents related to the plaintiff's…

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.

Topics
Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 26(B)(1) Fraudulent Concealment

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Federal Rule Of Civil Procedure 26(B)(1) cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Defendant State Farm Life Insurance Company moves for leave to serve a subpoena on John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A.) (John Hancock) with a return date beyond the close of fact discovery. (Motion, Dkt. 101.)1 Fact discovery in this matter closed on June1, 2022. (Dkt. 40.) The court held a hearing on the Motion on July 8, 2022. Upon consideration, Defendant’s Motion is granted in part. Courts enjoy broad discretion in deciding how to best manage the cases before them. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F. 3d 1353, 1366 (11th Cir. 1997); see Patterson v. U.S. Postal Serv., 901 F. 2d 927, 929 (11th Cir. 1990). In exercising this discretion, a court may, for good cause, extend the time concerning when an act must be done within a specific time if the request is made before the original time or its

“requested documents are relevant to Defendant’s affirmative defenses, and proportional to the needs of the case”). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Compel and for Leave to Serve a Subpoena is GRANTED in part, and Defendant is granted leave to serve the subpoena. Notwithstanding, nothing in this order shall be construed to permit the parties to re-open discovery or otherwise modify any deadlines set by the court. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on July 12, 2022.

JULIE §. SNEED

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record

Footnotes
1 On June 9, 2022, Defendant withdrew that part of its Motion seeking an order compelling Plaintiff to produce Plaintiff’s John Hancock life insurance policy. (Dkt. 102.) As such, the court does not consider that part of the Motion. extension expires. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(A). Here, Defendant’s Motion was timelyfiled and the court finds good cause to allow the subpoena to issue. Defendant seeks to subpoena documents related to Plaintiff’s life insurance policy with John Hancock. These documents are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. See McArdle v. City of Ocala, FL, 451 F. Supp. 3d 1304, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 2020) (“Relevancy and proportionality are the guiding principles: ‘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.’”) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1)); Gonzalez v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., No. 8:15-cv-240-T-30TBM, 2016 WL 7734076, at * 2 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 15, 2016) (“Although the federal rules generally allow for liberal discovery in civil matters, such is not unbounded. The Court must consider proportionality to the needs of the case.”). Specifically, the court finds that the documents sought in Defendant’s limited request to John Hancock are proportional to the needs of the case and are relevant to Defendant’s affirmative defenses related to the applicable statutes of limitations and Plaintiff’s claims of fraudulent concealment. (Dkt. 21.) See, e.g., Miller v. Env't Turnkey Sols., LLC, No. 2:15-cv-732-FTM-29CM, 2016 WL 7440834, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Dec. 27, 2016) (granting motion to compel where

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Tindal v. Def. Tax Grp., 2019 WL 2869063 (M.D. Fla. 2022)
    …3. With respect to Requests for Production Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 19, the Motion is granted. The court finds that the documents are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. See McArdle v. City of Ocala, FL, 451 F. Supp. 3d 1304, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 2020) (“Relevancy and proportionality are the guiding principles: ‘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.’”) (quot…
  • Toms v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 451 F. Supp. 3d 1304 (M.D. Fla. 2022)
    …cause to allow the subpoena to issue. Defendant seeks to subpoena documents related to Plaintiff’s life insurance policy with John Hancock. These documents are relevant and proportional to the needs of the case. See McArdle v. City of Ocala, FL, 451 F. Supp. 3d 1304, 1308 (M.D. Fla. 2020) (“Relevancy and proportionality are the guiding principles: ‘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.’”) (quoti…
  • Woods v. Reeve (S.D. Fla. 2023)
    …order; (3) is alleging unusually severe emotional distress; (4) is intending to offer expert testimony to support a claim for emotional distress; and (5) is conceding that his or her mental condition is in controversy. McArdle v. City of Ocala, FL, 451 F. Supp. 3d 1304, 1311 (M.D. Fla. 2020) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 35(a) and Chase, 2012 WL 1936082 at *4). None of the above factors are met here. Plaintiff’s claims here are brought on behalf of her daughter’s estate and she does not state a claim for intentional o…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw