Sumit Patel, et al. v. Federated Mutual Insurance Company

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied Federated Mutual Insurance Company’s motion to quash subpoenas seeking claim-investigation records from four entities. The court held that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4) and 45 do not broadly prohibit subpoenas for documents in the possession of an opposing party’s expert or the expert’s employer, and that Federated had not identified a specific protected document or undue burden warranting relief.

Holdings

1. Neither Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 nor Rule 45 broadly prohibits a party from subpoenaing documents in the possession of an opposing party's expert or the expert's employer.
2. Rule 26(b)(4)(D) protects consulting experts from interrogatories and depositions but does not limit subpoenas for documents.
3. The subpoenas were not subject to quashing as premature because the expert-designation deadline had passed while the motion was pending, and Federated failed to identify a specific document whose discoverability depended on the designation.
4. A subpoena should not be modified or quashed merely because it could encompass documents already protected by the Rules; the movant must identify a live dispute over specific documents.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 broadly prohibits a party from subpoenaing documents in the possession of an opposing party's expert or the expert's employer.
2. Whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)(D), which protects consulting experts from interrogatories and depositions, also limits subpoenas for documents.
3. Whether the subpoenas were premature because Federated had not yet designated its testifying experts.
4. Whether the possibility that the subpoenas could encompass documents protected under Rules 26(b)(4)(B) or (C) and 45(d)(3)(A) required the court to modify or quash them.

Disposition

other