Michael Chance Grigsby, Jr. and Tessa Renae Grigsby v. Homesite Indemnity Company

Summary

The court denied a non-party construction company’s motion to quash a deposition subpoena and for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. It held that testimony concerning the preparation of a repair estimate was relevant to the plaintiffs’ bad-faith insurance claim, was not unreasonably cumulative, and had not been shown to impose an undue burden or expense; the court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for attorneys’ fees.

Holdings

1. The subpoena sought discovery within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) because information about how the repair estimate was prepared, including whether it resulted from an independent evaluation, was relevant to Plaintiffs' insurance bad-faith claim.
2. The subpoena was not unreasonably cumulative or duplicative and the information was not shown to be obtainable from another source that was more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive.
3. Heintzelman Construction did not adequately demonstrate that the deposition would impose an undue burden or expense; therefore, the subpoena was not quashed and a protective order was not warranted.
4. Plaintiffs were not awarded attorneys' fees.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Rule 45 deposition subpoena to Sandra Heintzelman sought relevant and proportional discovery within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1).
2. Whether the subpoena should be quashed or modified because the requested discovery was unreasonably cumulative, available from a more convenient source, or unduly burdensome or expensive under Rules 26(b)(2)(C) and 45(d)(3).
3. Whether Plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys' fees after successfully opposing the motion to quash.

Disposition

other