Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Tilghman v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, 3:17-CV-00335 BSM. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Arkansas Number: infdco20190410a41 Visitors: 17
Filed: Apr. 09, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 09, 2019
Summary: ORDER BRIAN S. MILLER , Chief District Judge . Tilghman's motion to compel what could be more than 100,000 documents from Allstate [Doc. No. 18] is denied because the request is overly broad and out of proportion to the needs of this case. See Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 903 F.3d 733 , 742 (8th Cir. 2018) (the proportionality of discovery must be considered when resolving disputes). This battle to the death began when Allstate, Tilghman's uninsured motorist carrier, offered to pay her $40,0
More

ORDER

Tilghman's motion to compel what could be more than 100,000 documents from Allstate [Doc. No. 18] is denied because the request is overly broad and out of proportion to the needs of this case. See Vallejo v. Amgen, Inc., 903 F.3d 733, 742 (8th Cir. 2018) (the proportionality of discovery must be considered when resolving disputes).

This battle to the death began when Allstate, Tilghman's uninsured motorist carrier, offered to pay her $40,000 and not the $50,000 policy limit, after Tilghman was in a car accident that produced $406.81 in property damage. The parties are now engaging in what appears to be tens of thousands of dollars worth of litigation and discovery, including this discovery dispute in which over 120 pages, exclusive of exhibits, were filed. While the parties are free to spend as much time and money fighting as they please, they are admonished to carefully consider the discovery issues they can resolve by themselves and the ones they should raise in motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer