Travelers Casualty and Surety Company v. Marsh Management Services, Inc.

Travelers v. Marsh Management · Vermont Superior Court, Civil Division, Chittenden Unit · March 26, 2026 · No. 25-CV-02622

Summary

The Vermont Superior Court deferred ruling on Travelers’ motion to enforce a foreign subpoena and Marsh Management Services, Inc.’s cross-motion to quash. The court concluded that the New Jersey court and its appointed Special Discovery Adjudicator were better positioned to resolve issues concerning relevance, attorney-client privilege, and work-product protection, and that comity and judicial economy favored deferral. The parties were ordered to seek resolution of their discovery disputes in the New Jersey coverage action, with leave to return to the Vermont court if necessary.

Holdings

  1. The Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act provides a mechanism for enforcing a subpoena in a foreign jurisdiction and for a nonparty to move to quash in its home state, but it does not divest the trial-state court of jurisdiction to resolve discovery disputes between the parties.
  2. When a related discovery dispute is pending before a competent court or adjudicator in another state, and that forum can provide prompt and complete relief, principles of comity, judicial economy, and avoidance of inconsistent rulings may warrant a Vermont court's nonintervention.
  3. The court would defer ruling on the motion to enforce and cross-motion to quash and stay consideration of those motions pending review and determination of the discovery disputes by the New Jersey Special Discovery Adjudicator.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the Vermont court should enforce Travelers' foreign subpoena or address Marsh Management Services' cross-motion to quash when the subpoena concerns discovery in an ongoing New Jersey action.
  2. Whether principles of interstate comity and judicial economy warranted deferring the Vermont subpoena dispute to the New Jersey court's appointed Special Discovery Adjudicator.
  3. Whether the Uniform Interstate Depositions and Discovery Act divests the trial-state court of jurisdiction over discovery disputes concerning a subpoena issued in another state.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (7)

  • Catalina Mktg. Corp. v. Hudyman, 212 A.3d 997, 1001 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019)(followed)
  • Cavallari v. Martin, 169 Vt. 210, 215, 732 A.2d 739, 743 (1999)(followed)
  • Nijensohn v. Ring, 2022 VT 16, ¶¶ 13, 15, 216 Vt. 329(followed)
  • Chandler v. Vt. Mut. Ins. Co., Docket No. 2014-030, 2014 WL 3714930, at *2 (Vt. May 2014) (unpub. mem.)(followed)
  • Sensient Colors Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 939 A.2d 767, 774 (N.J. 2008)(followed)
  • In re Dennis’ Estate, 98 Vt. 424, 426, 129 A. 166, 167 (1925)(followed)
  • Washburn v. Fowlkes, Docket No. 2015-089, 2015 WL 4771613, at *3 (Vt. Aug. 2015)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…