William J. May and Anna M. May v. Homesite Indemnity Company

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied a non-party construction company’s motion to quash a deposition subpoena and for a protective order. The court held that testimony concerning 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.

Holdings

1. The subpoena sought information within the permissible scope of discovery because the preparation of the repair estimate, including whether it resulted from an independent evaluation or duplicated Defendant's estimate, was relevant to Plaintiffs' bad-faith claim.
2. The subpoena should not be quashed on the ground that the requested information was unreasonably cumulative, duplicative, or available from a more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive source.
3. The motion to quash and for a protective order was properly denied because Heintzelman Construction did not adequately show that the deposition would impose an undue burden or expense.
4. Plaintiffs were not awarded attorney fees incurred in opposing the motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the deposition subpoena to Sandra Heintzelman sought relevant and proportional discovery within the scope of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1).
2. Whether the subpoena should be quashed or modified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(3) because it was unduly burdensome, unreasonably cumulative, or sought information available from a less burdensome source.
3. Whether Plaintiffs were entitled to attorney fees incurred in opposing the motion to quash.

Disposition

other