Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Coppinger v. Allstate Insurance Co.

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

May 24, 2019

MARY LOU COPPINGER, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant.

          ORDER

          HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR JUDGE

         This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's motion to enforce the Court's February 26, 2019 order (Dkt. No. 45). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the motion for the reasons explained herein.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The Court has previously set forth the facts of this case and will not repeat them here. (Dkt. Nos. 11, 18, 25, 43.) After the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendant's motion to compel discovery (Dkt. No. 43), Defendant brings the present motion arguing that Plaintiff has failed to comply with portions of that order. (Dkt. No. 45.)

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Discovery Disputes

         1. Interrogatories 6 and 7

         Interrogatories 6 and 7 ask Plaintiff to identify her alleged damages and the factual support for those damages. (Dkt. No. 46-1 at 13-15.) In response, it appears that Plaintiff has produced a list of medical costs and the offices in which she incurred those costs, but not what services the costs paid for. (Dkt. No. 48 at 12-14.) The services that the alleged costs paid for is relevant to Defendant's defense because Defendant must know whether Plaintiff's claimed medical costs covered services that were conceivably caused by the accident. Therefore, Defendant must be made aware of the services and prescriptions that those costs covered. However, the Court is aware that Defendant has deposed, and still will depose, many of Plaintiff's previous and current medical care providers. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 45, 47, 49.) If the information sought is available through deposition of Plaintiff's medical providers, deposition testimony will suffice to fill that gap in knowledge. As long as Defendant has some way of understanding what Plaintiff's claimed medical costs covered, that is sufficient to comply with the Court's prior order. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion as to Interrogatories 6 and 7, inasmuch as, if deposition testimony does not fill that gap in knowledge, Plaintiff is ORDERED to do so by supplementing these interrogatories.

         2. Interrogatory 15

         Interrogatory 15 asks Plaintiff to provide an itemized list of the medical expenses that she contends were proximately caused by the accident and how they were paid. (Dkt. No. 46-1 at 17.) Defendant argues that Plaintiff still has not complied because she has not identified which medical expenses were paid for with her $50, 000 recovery from the at-fault driver. (Dkt. No. 45 at 7.) If the list Plaintiff provided is the extent of her medical damages, Defendant can calculate whether those damages exceed the payout Plaintiff received. Therefore, Defendant's motion as to Interrogatory 15 is DENIED.

         3. Interrogatory 18

         Interrogatory 18 asks Plaintiff to identify and describe all communications between Plaintiff and any third party about the accident, this lawsuit, or any alleged injuries caused by the accident. Defendant argues that Plaintiff has flatly ignored the Court's order because she has not produced anything further and she has not indicated what search terms she used. The Court did not order Plaintiff to tell Defendant what search terms she used, but ordered her to use them in supplementing her response. Plaintiff certifies that she has produced everything responsive to this interrogatory. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion as to Interrogatory 18.

         4. Interrogatory 20

         Interrogatory 20 asks Plaintiff about her pre-accident chiropractic care. (Dkt. No. 50-1 at 3.) For the first time in its reply brief, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has not fully responded to this interrogatory because: (1) her chiropractor's memory is vague and imprecise; her chiropractor's recordkeeping is questionable; and (3) Plaintiff has not otherwise filled this gap in knowledge. (Dkt. No. 49 at 6-7.) Defendant has made no showing that her chiropractor's memory and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.