Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co. v. Eucker

Vermont Superior Court

Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co. v. Eucker

DecidedMarch 24, 2014

Docket234

StatusPublished

This text of Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co. v. Eucker (Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co. v. Eucker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Vermont Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co. v. Eucker, (Vt. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co. v. Eucker, No. 234-5-13 Bncv (Wesley, J. Mar. 24, 2014). [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.] VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION Bennington Unit Docket No. 234-5-13 Bncv

Middlesex Mutual Assurance Company, Plaintiff.

v.

Catherine G. Eucker, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,

TPW Management, LLC., Third-Party Defendant.

Opinion and Order Granting Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Interrogatories

On February 7, 2014, Catherine Eucker filed a motion to compel discovery. Eucker sent TPW Management, LLC., several discovery requests. Specifically, Eucker sent TPW interrogatories that sought information about TPW’s financial records. For many of the responses, TPW used this statement:

“Objection. This request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are confidential, irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and beyond the scope of discovery under V.R.C.P. 26.”

Eucker also made several requests for document production. Eucker asserts the documents produced did not completely respond to her requests.

On February 13, 2014, TPW opposed Eucker’s motion to compel. TPW argued Eucker’s requests are premature because the Court may decide to stay the civil case. TPW also requested adequate time to respond to Eucker’s discovery requests if the Court denied the motion to stay. On March 10, 2014, the Court denied the motion to stay.

The Court now considers the adequacy of TPW’s discovery responses. The Court directs TPW to comply with Eucker’s discovery requests. Generally, parties may seek discovery of any relevant non-privileged information. V.R.C.P. 26(b)(1). A party that withholds information under a claim of privilege must do so explicitly and must describe the nature of the withheld information. V.R.C.P. 26(b)(5)(A). TPW’s responses are too vague to support claims of privilege. Similarly, merely stating that Eucker’s requests are too broad, burdensome, or seek privileged information is not a sufficient response. Instead, to justify failing to respond or produce, TPW should have described why the specific request is too broad or overly burdensome. TPW may only withhold information based on a privilege by specifying which privilege protects the information, with sufficient information to allow the opposing party and the Court to evaluate if the privilege applies.

Order

The Court GRANTS Eucker’s motion to compel. TPW must supplement its discovery responses within 20 days.

Dated and signed electronically at Bennington, Vermont on March 24, 2014.

John P. Wesley Superior Court Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co. v. Eucker, No. 234-5-13 Bncv (Wesley, J. Mar. 24, 2014). [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.] VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION Bennington Unit Docket No. 234-5-13 Bncv

Middlesex Mutual Assurance Company, Plaintiff.

v.

Catherine G. Eucker, Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff,

TPW Management, LLC., Third-Party Defendant.

Opinion and Order Granting Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Response to Interrogatories

On February 7, 2014, Catherine Eucker filed a motion to compel discovery. Eucker sent TPW Management, LLC., several discovery requests. Specifically, Eucker sent TPW interrogatories that sought information about TPW’s financial records. For many of the responses, TPW used this statement:

“Objection. This request is overly broad, unduly burdensome and seeks documents which are confidential, irrelevant, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and beyond the scope of discovery under V.R.C.P. 26.”

Eucker also made several requests for document production. Eucker asserts the documents produced did not completely respond to her requests.

On February 13, 2014, TPW opposed Eucker’s motion to compel. TPW argued Eucker’s requests are premature because the Court may decide to stay the civil case. TPW also requested adequate time to respond to Eucker’s discovery requests if the Court denied the motion to stay. On March 10, 2014, the Court denied the motion to stay.

The Court now considers the adequacy of TPW’s discovery responses. The Court directs TPW to comply with Eucker’s discovery requests. Generally, parties may seek discovery of any relevant non-privileged information. V.R.C.P. 26(b)(1). A party that withholds information under a claim of privilege must do so explicitly and must describe the nature of the withheld information. V.R.C.P. 26(b)(5)(A). TPW’s responses are too vague to support claims of privilege. Similarly, merely stating that Eucker’s requests are too broad, burdensome, or seek privileged information is not a sufficient response. Instead, to justify failing to respond or produce, TPW should have described why the specific request is too broad or overly burdensome. TPW may only withhold information based on a privilege by specifying which privilege protects the information, with sufficient information to allow the opposing party and the Court to evaluate if the privilege applies.

Order

The Court GRANTS Eucker’s motion to compel. TPW must supplement its discovery responses within 20 days.

Dated and signed electronically at Bennington, Vermont on March 24, 2014.

John P. Wesley Superior Court Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Middlesex Mut. Assurance Co. v. Eucker, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middlesex-mut-assurance-co-v-eucker-vtsuperct-2014.