Wellinger Family Trust 1998
v.
Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADOFeb 21, 2013
Civil Action No. 11-cv-02568-CMA-BNB (D. Colo. Feb. 21, 2013)

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02568-CMA-BNB

02-21-2013

THE WELLINGER FAMILY TRUST 1998; JULIE WELLINGER, trustee, and JULIE WELLINGER, individually, Plaintiffs, v. HARTFORD LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut insurance company, Defendant.


Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland


ORDER

This matter arises on the following:

(1) Corrected Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Complete Responses to Written Discovery [Doc. # 52, filed 1/28/2013] (the "Motion to Compel"); and

(2) Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for In Camera Review of Disputed Items From Defendant's Privilege Log [Doc. # 48, filed 1/25/2013] (the "Motion for In Camera Review").

I held a hearing on the motions yesterday and made rulings on the record, which are incorporated here.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Motion to Compel [Doc. # 52] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

•GRANTED with respect to Interrogatories 4, 5, 6, and 13 to require the defendant to provide a full and complete answer to the following: What the defendant determined regarding Jeffrey Wellinger's ability to maintain life insurance post-employment at the same level as maintained during his employment including: (I) the identity of the person who made the determination; (ii) the life insurance coverage available to Jeffrey Wellinger post-employment; (iii) the basis for the determination of the life insurance coverage available to Jeffrey Wellinger post-employment; and (iv) the documents supporting the defendant's determination of the life insurance coverage available to Jeffrey Wellinger post-employment;

•GRANTED with respect to Interrogatories 11, 13, and 19;

•GRANTED with respect to Production Request 3 to require the defendant to produce documents referred to or relied on in answering Interrogatories 4, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16, and 19; and

•DENIED in all other respects.

(2) The Motion for In Camera Review [Doc. # 48] is DENIED without prejudice pending the defendant's supplemental response to Interrogatory 16 and the preparation of a revised privilege log identifying the date the documents were created or annotations to the documents were made; the author and all recipients of the documents claimed to be privileged; and specification with particularity of the privilege or immunity claimed as to each document.

(3) The defendant shall provide supplemental discovery responses consistent with this Order and in full compliance with the formalities of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on or before March 1, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

Boyd N. Boland


United States Magistrate Judge