JOHN ALEXANDER BURGESS And SYLVIA SANTOS CRUZ, et ux., Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY and DWAYNE NELSON, Defendants CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:23-CV-142 United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Martinsburg Filed January 05, 2024 Counsel George Nico Sidiropolis, I, Flanigan Legal, PLLC, Wheeling, WV, Martin P. Sheehan, Sheehan & Associates, P.L.L.C., Wheeling, WV, Jordan M. Laird, Laird Law PLLC, Wheeling, WV, for Plaintiff. Jonathan Tyler Mayhew, Bowles, Rice, McDavid, Graff & Love, Martinsburg, WV, Liana Stinson, Bowles Rice LLP, Martinsburg, WV, Patrick Craig Timony, Bowles, Rice, McDavid, Graff & Love, Charleston, WV, Joshua Allen Lanham, Bowles Rice LLP, Charleston, WV, for Defendant. Trumble, Robert W., United States Magistrate Judge ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION [ECF NO. 21] TO COMPEL INTERROGATORIES AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION [22] TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS I. INTRODUCTION *1 On December 14, 2023, came the Plaintiffs, John Alexander Burgess and Sylvia Santos Cruz, et ux., by counsel George N. Sidiropolis, Esq., and came Defendant, Nationwide Property and Casualty Insurance Company by counsel, Tyler Mayhew, Esq., and Liana Stinson, Esq., for an evidentiary hearing on Plaintiff's Motions [ECF Nos. 21, 22] to Compel Interrogatories and Production of Documents, respectively. On June 28, 2023, the parties participated in a discovery planning conference pursuant to Rule 26(f) and agreed to work together to draft a protective order to submit to the court. ECF No. 7 at 2, ¶ 3. On August 3, 2023, Plaintiffs served [ECF No. 11] their First Interrogatories and Requests for Production on Nationwide and on September 5, 2023, Nationwide served its Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories and Requests for Production to Plaintiffs. ECF No. 12. Nationwide submitted its Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories and Requests for Production on September 22, 2023. ECF No. 14. However, a Protective Order had not been entered prior to Nationwide's initial and supplemental objections and responses to Plaintiff's discovery. On October 12, 2023, Plaintiffs preemptively filed their Motions [ECF No. 21, 22] to Compel Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. Despite entry of a Protective Order on October 18, 2023 [ECF No. 29], the parties were unable to resolve the discovery disputes. Nationwide's Response [ECF No. 33] in Opposition to the Motions to Compel was filed on October 30, 2023.[1] Plaintiffs filed a Reply [ECF No. 36] on November 3, 2023. Thereafter, Nationwide submitted its Second and Third Supplemental Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories and Requests for Production. ECF Nos. 37, 38. II. LEGAL STANDARDS When a party fails to make requested disclosures or discovery, the requesting party may file a motion to compel. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). The party “resisting discovery, not the party moving to compel discovery, bears the burden of persuasion.” Ceresini v. Gonzales, No. 3:21-CV-40, 2022 WL 628520 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 3, 2022). “Thus, once the moving party has made ‘a prima facie showing of discoverability,’ the resisting party has the burden of showing either: (1) that the discovery sought is not relevant within the meaning of Rule 26(b)(1); or (2) that the discovery sought ‘is of such marginal relevance that the potential harm ... would outweigh the ordinary presumption of broad discovery.’ ” PNGI Charles Town Gaming, LLC v. Hot Spot Ct Real Est., LLC, No. 3:18CV38, 2019 WL 8333525 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 18, 2019) (quoting Eramo v. Rolling Stone LLC, 314 F.R.D. 205, 209 (W.D. Va. 2016)). “[T]he discovery rules are given a broad and liberal treatment.” Shulin v. Werner Enterprises, Inc., No. 1:15CV87, 2016 WL 11500223 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 25, 2016) (quoting Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, P.A. v. Murray Sheet Metal Co. Inc., 967 F.2d 980, 983 (4th Cir. 1992)). Moreover, “[d]istrict courts generally have broad discretion in managing discovery, including whether to grant or deny a motion to compel.” Bellon v. PPG Emp. Life, No. 5:18-CV-114, 2023 WL 4155420 (N.D.W. Va. Feb. 6, 2023). “Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevance is not, on its own, a high bar.” Va. Dep't of Corrs. v. Jordan, 921 F.3d 180, 188 (4th Cir. 2019). Federal courts have long understood that “[r]elevancy for discovery purposes is defined more broadly than relevancy for evidentiary purposes.” Kidwiler v. Progressive Paloverde Ins. Co., 192 F.R.D. 193, 199 (N.D. W. Va. 2000). As such, information “need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). *2 Information sought is relevant if it “bears on, [or] reasonably could lead to any other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). But discovery, “like all matters of procedure, has ultimate and necessary boundaries.” Susko v. City of Weirton, No. 5:09-CV-1, 2011 WL 98557 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 12, 2011). Courts must limit the frequency or extent of proposed discovery if it is “outside the scope permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). Although Rule 26(b)(1)'s relevance inquiry does not, itself, pose a “high bar,” its proportionality requirement mandates consideration of multiple factors in determining whether to allow discovery of even relevant information. Jordan, 921 F.3d at 188–89. These factors include: “the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties' relative access to relevant information, the parties' resources, the importance of discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). III. DISCUSSION AND RULING Plaintiffs filed separate Motions on October 12, 2023, seeking to compel Nationwide to respond to Interrogatories 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17, and Requests for Production 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9. ECF Nos. 21, 22. Plaintiffs withdrew their Motion as to Interrogatories 9 and 11. At the evidentiary hearing, the Court proceeded to hear arguments on the remaining discovery disputes. A. Plaintiff's Motion [ECF No. 21] to Compel Interrogatories 1. Interrogatory 1 INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Please state the name, address, telephone number, position with Defendant Nationwide of any and all persons contributing to, answering or supplying information contained in the answers or responses to the following Interrogatories and Request for Production, and specify to which answer or response they contributed, answered or supplied information. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory seeks private identifying information regarding employees of Nationwide who have not authorized the release of personal, private information to third parties such as Plaintiffs. Nationwide further objects to specifying discovery requests that each person contributed to as an impermissible attempt to obtain the factual work product and mental impressions of Nationwide's counsel which are protected by the attorney client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving these objections, the answers to Plaintiffs' first set of discovery requests were prepared utilizing information and documents produced as part of Nationwide's initial disclosures. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Nationwide reincorporates its prior objections. Nationwide further states that Kellie Strahotsky provided information for Nationwide's responses to Interrogatory 8 and Request for Production 4. Additionally, these interrogatory responses have been verified as true and correct to the best of Nationwide's knowledge, information, and belief by its authorized agent, Scott Fretz. Their respective positions and contact information are set forth in Nationwide's initial disclosures. ECF No. 21 at 6. The Plaintiffs argue that the Motion to Compel is necessary because Nationwide is “withhold[ing] the identity of the individual(s) answering interrogatories and furnishing responses to discovery.” ECF No. 36 at 2. In support, they argue that disclosure of such information is mandatory pursuant to Slampak v. Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., No. 5:18-CV-154, 2019 WL 4418806, at *7 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 16, 2019) (“absent a valid objection, Defendant is obligated to provide the information requested concerning the person answering the discovery.”). Nationwide argues that it has complied with the terms of the interrogatories, because its “discovery responses were prepared by reference to the claim file it produced and the list of individuals it disclosed as part of its Rule 26(a)(1) initial discovery disclosures.” ECF No. 33 at 5. Further, Nationwide argues that the supplemental response identified Kelly Strahotsky and Scott Fretz, a claims adjuster and the claim manager in question, respectively, as verifying the company's responses as true and accurate. Id. at 5–6. Accordingly, Nationwide contends it has fully responded to the Interrogatory. *3 The Court finds that based on Slampak, the desired information is discoverable. Although Nationwide has identified individuals who provide information responsive to certain Interrogatories and Requests for Production, and who verified its responses, it fails to identify others who may have contributed or supplied information responsive to the discovery. For this reason, Plaintiffs' Motion as to Interrogatory 1 is GRANTED IN PART and Nationwide shall produce the name and position of persons who contributed to, answered, or supplied information responsive to Plaintiffs' discovery. 2. Interrogatories 2, 3, and 4 INTERROGATORY NO. 2: Please describe in detail the date and substance of each communication between defendant Nationwide and/or its agents and any witness interviewed from the date of the loss in question to the present. For each communication please describe, the type of communication, whether phone call or correspondence, and a brief synopsis of the substance of each communication. ANSWER: Objection. Nationwide objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving these objections, pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 33.01, please see the claim file and SIU files produced as part of Nationwide's initial disclosures for relevant responsive information. Nationwide reasserts the objections set forth on its privilege log produced in conjunction with those files. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Nationwide reincorporates its prior objections and further objects that this request is not proportional to the needs of the case. Nationwide further states that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 33.01, the requested information is contained in the claim file (Nationwide 000001-002923), including the SIU file (Nationwide 002924-002963), previously produced as part of Nationwide's initial disclosures for relevant responsive information. A recorded interview of John Burgess is being produced as part of the claim file at Nationwide 002776. Please also see the claim notes section of the activity log portion of the claim file (Nationwide 000004-000124) and the notes section of the SIU file (Nationwide 002952-2956) for a summary of the relevant communications. This is a case regarding the value of the claim only. The burden of further determining the responsive information is the same for both parties, particularly given the number of communications from Plaintiffs throughout the claim and an amount in controversy of approximately $150,000.00. ECF No. 21 at 7–8. INTERROGATORY NO. 3: Describe all payments made by Defendant Nationwide and/or its agents stemming from the loss of December 31, 2020, which is the subject matter of the plaintiff's Complaint including amounts paid, reason for payment, and identify the individual receiving the same. ANSWER: Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 33.01, please see the claim file produced as part of Nationwide's initial disclosures for relevant responsive information. Nationwide reasserts the objections set forth on its privilege log produced in conjunction with that file. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Nationwide reincorporates its prior objections and further objects that this request is not proportional to the needs of the case. Nationwide further states that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 33.01, the requested information is contained in the claim file (Nationwide 000001-002923) produced as part of Nationwide's initial disclosures for relevant responsive information. Please also see the financials section of the activity log portion of the claim file (Nationwide 000152-339) for a summary of the payments made from the date of loss, including the amount paid, date, cost type, and check details. This is a case regarding the value of the claim only. The burden of further determining the responsive information is the same for both parties, particularly given the number of payments throughout the claim and an amount in controversy of approximately $150,000.00. Nationwide reasserts the objections set forth on its privilege log produced in conjunction with the files. *4 ECF No. 21 at 10. INTERROGATORY NO. 4: Please describe each and every step that was taken by Defendant Nationwide or its agents in the investigation of the incident of December 31, 2020, and the claim arising from said incident, and for each step please list the dates and person(s) involved, and what information was obtained. ANSWER: Pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 33.01, please see the claim file and SIU files produced as part of Nationwide's initial disclosures for relevant responsive information. Nationwide reasserts the objections set forth on its privilege log produced in conjunction with those files. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Nationwide reincorporates its prior objections and further objects that this request is not proportional to the needs of the case. Nationwide further states that, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d) and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 33.01, the requested information is contained the claim file (Nationwide 000001-002923), including the SIU file (Nationwide 002924-002963), previously produced as part of Nationwide's initial disclosures for relevant responsive information. Please also see the claim notes section of the activity log portion of the claim file (Nationwide 000004-000124) and the notes section of the SIU file (Nationwide 002952-2956) for a timeline of the claim, relevant communications, and actions taken on the claim. Please also see the financials section of the activity log portion of the claim file (Nationwide 000152-339) for a summary of the payments made from the date of loss, including the amount paid, date, cost type, and check details. This is a case regarding the value of the claim only. The burden of further determining the responsive information is the same for both parties, particularly given the actions taken by Nationwide throughout the claim, number of communications from Plaintiffs throughout the claim, and an amount in controversy of approximately $150,000.00. ECF No. 21 at 11–12. In its Motion to Compel and at the evidentiary hearing, the Plaintiffs argue that “[i]t is insufficient for Nationwide to direct the plaintiff to look at the claim file (i.e., pages 000001-002923 and 002924-002963) instead of answering the question directly.” ECF No. 36 at 3. In support, they argue that McCollum v. GEICO, No. 5:20CV46, 2020 WL 6947904, at *3 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 24, 2020) requires supplementation because Nationwide “would have more familiarity than Plaintiff as to how [the claim file] is organized.” Id. Specifically, as to Interrogatory 4, the Plaintiffs argue that in Allman v. CMFG Life Ins. Co., No. 5:20CV220, 2021 WL 9666795, at *3 (N.D.W. Va. July 8, 2021), the Court held that there was “nothing unduly burdensome about [Defendant being compelled to identify] actions taken during the course of the handling of a claim.”). Id. at *4. Nationwide argues that it has identified the relevant portions of the claims file responsive to these interrogatories pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 33(d), which sets forth the Option to Produce Business Records: *5 “If the answer to an interrogatory may be determined by examining, auditing, compiling, abstracting, or summarizing a party's business records (including electronically stored information), and if the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same for either party, the responding party may answer by: (1) specifying the records that must be reviewed, in sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to locate and identify them as readily as the responding party could; and (2) giving the interrogating party a reasonable opportunity to examine and audit the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d). Nationwide contends it has provided adequately specific page ranges of the claim file to Plaintiffs and argue that the burden is on each side equally to derive the requested information. ECF No. 33 at 7. Here, Nationwide has provided specific, and much shorter, page ranges in their respective responses to Interrogatories 2, 3, and 4 than the responding party in McCollum, wherein only a general referral to a claim file containing over 1,000 pages was given. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs contend that McCollum controls and because the claim file contains “acronyms and industry-specific language, it would likely be easier and less time-consuming for [the non-moving party] to search these documents and decipher them to glean the information relevant to the discovery requests at issue.” ECF No. 36 at 3; see also McCollum, 2020 WL 6947904, at *3. This is not the case here. After reviewing the claim file in camera, the Court has determined that the claim file is sufficiently navigable and understandable as presented, and that the burden of answering the Interrogatories would be equal to all parties. Further, unlike in Allman, the individuals making the entries in Nationwide's claim file are identified by name and not by code and have been identified in Nationwide's initial disclosures. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Nationwide to further answer Interrogatories 2, 3, and 4 is DENIED. 3. Interrogatory 7 INTERROGATORY NO. 7: List all documents reviewed in responding to Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production. ANSWER: Objection. Nationwide objects to this Interrogatory as an impermissible attempt to obtain the mental impressions of Nationwide's counsel which are protected by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving this objection, pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 33.01, please see Nationwide's initial disclosures. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Nationwide reincorporates its prior objections and further objects that this request is not proportional to the needs of the case. As part of its initial disclosures, Nationwide produced its claim file (Nationwide 000001-002923), including the SIU file (002924-002963) and XactAnalysis file (002964-005961). ECF No. 21 at 13. The Plaintiffs argue that “a list of documents reviewed in responding to plaintiff's Interrogatories and Requests for Production,” is discoverable information. ECF No. 36 at 4. In support, they cite to Patrick v. Teays Valley Trustees, LLC, 297 F.R.D. 248, 260 (N.D.W. Va. 2013), wherein the Court “compelled a response to a comparable request which stated ‘please provide a copy of all documents referred to or used to answer these Interrogatories[.]’ ” Patrick, 297 F.R.D. at 260. Further, Plaintiffs argue that the information provided by Nationwide in its original disclosures was different from Nationwide's subsequent response. Nationwide responds that it has already provided the entire claims file and other relevant documentation, and that “[r]equiring Nationwide to list every document contained in its 5,961-page claim file is clearly inappropriate and not proportional to the needs of this case.” ECF No. 33 at 11. And again, Nationwide rests on Rule 33(d) in support of its objections and answers. Finally, Nationwide asserts that Patrick is inapplicable because that case dealt with a request for production and not an interrogatory. ECF No. 33 at 11–12. *6 Despite the nature of the discovery request at issue and Nationwide's arguments, the Interrogatory as written is broader than Nationwide's answer. For this reason, as to Interrogatory 7, the undersigned GRANTS IN PART Plaintiffs' Motion. To the extent that Nationwide has not already done so, Nationwide is ordered to provide a list of all non-privileged, non-work-product documents reviewed in responding to Plaintiffs' discovery requests. 4. Interrogatories 10 and 13 Interrogatories 10 and 13 seek similar, if not identical, information. Therefore, the undersigned will address them together. INTERROGATORY NO. 10: Please identify all documents and other information including, manuals, policies, procedures, e-mails, memorandum, directives, treatises, literature, other publications, and all printed or electronic information/communications, both internal and external, that Defendant Nationwide relied upon in any manner to adjust Plaintiff's claims arising from the fire loss of December 31, 2020. ANSWER: Objection. Nationwide objects to this Interrogatory as seeking information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. Further, the request seeks confidential and proprietary information. Subject to and without waiving these objections, pursuant to Local Rule 33.01, relevant information and communications regarding Nationwide's adjustment of the claim are contained in the claim file and SIU files. Nationwide reasserts the objections set forth on its privilege log produced in conjunction with those files. Additionally, upon entry of a suitable discovery Protective Order, Nationwide will produce its 2021 West Virginia claims manual relating to the handling of first-party property damage claims. ECF No. 21 at 15. INTERROGATORY NO. 13: Identify any policies, procedures, guidelines, directives, memos or any other documents setting forth the standards, rules, guidelines or protocols Defendant Nationwide adjusters in West Virginia to follow in adjusting residential fire loss claims. ANSWER: See Nationwide's objections and responses to Interrogatory No. 10. ECF No. 21 at 19–20. The Plaintiffs argue that the Motion to Compel is necessary because “Nationwide has not made a full and complete answer to the Interrogatories.” ECF No. 36 at 4. In support of this claim, they cite to Paull Assocs. Realty, LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 5:13-CV-80, 2014 WL 12596397 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 9, 2014), wherein the Court required the production of “[a]ll decisional manuals, directives, procedures, rules, regulations, authoritative treatises, sources, resources and all other documents relied upon, used, utilized, considered, consulted or referred to in the handling of the underlying claims.” Id. at *3. Although Nationwide agreed to provide its 2021 West Virginia claims manual relating to the handling of first-party property damage claims, despite the entry of a Protective Order [ECF No. 29], it has not fully responded to the Interrogatory. The Court finds that the desired information is discoverable. For these reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion, and to the extent that it has not already done so, directs Nationwide to supplement its answers to these Interrogatories and identify those documents Nationwide and/or its adjusters relied upon in adjusting Plaintiffs' fire loss claim. 5. Interrogatory 12 INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Identify all methods, tools, methodologies, computer programs or other systems used to determine, value, analyze, approve, disapprove or organize residential fire loss claims in West Virginia. *7 ANSWER: Objection. Nationwide objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and seeking information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, this Interrogatory seeks information that has nothing to do with how Plaintiffs' insurance claim was handled; for example, how Nationwide organizes claims information or valued unrelated insurance claims, has no tendency to prove or disprove any fact at issue in this case. Subject to and without waiving these objections, insurance claims submitted to Nationwide involve unique facts, losses, and characteristics and are handled on a case-by-case basis. Relevant information regarding Nationwide's adjustment of Plaintiffs' claim is contained in the claim file. Nationwide reasserts the objections set forth on its privilege log produced in conjunction with that file. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Nationwide reincorporates its prior objections. Nationwide further states that Xactimate was used as part of valuing the claim. The XactAnalysis portion of the claim file (Nationwide 002964-005961) was produced as part of Nationwide's initial disclosures. Additional information regarding Nationwide's adjustment of Plaintiffs' claim is contained in the claim file (Nationwide 000001-002923) and summarized in the notes section of the activity log portion of the claim file (Nationwide 8 000004-000124), and payments are summarized in the financials section of the activity log portion of the claim file (Nationwide 000152-339). ECF No. 21 at 18. The Plaintiffs argue that “Nationwide's answer is incomplete insofar as it neglects to identify Guidewire software that was utilized in reference to the plaintiff's claim.” ECF No. 36 at 5. Nationwide contends that it disclosed its claims handling practices, methods, and programs to the Plaintiff, and identified that it utilized a program called Xactimate to value the claim. ECF No. 33 at 16. At the hearing, Nationwide argued that it did not utilize the program known as Guidewire to evaluate Plaintiff's claims, or any other program or tool for that matter. The undersigned finds that Nationwide has responded to this Interrogatory through its verified responses, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory 12 is DENIED. 6. Interrogatory 14 INTERROGATORY NO. 14: Identify all files, electronic, paper or otherwise, you maintain concerning Plaintiff(s). ANSWER: Objection. Nationwide objects to this Interrogatory to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine. Nationwide further objects to producing the file of its counsel, which does not require a privilege log. Subject to and without waiving these objections, pursuant to Local Rule of Civil Procedure 33.01, please see Nationwide's initial disclosures, including, the SIU file (002952-002956) previously produced as part of Nationwide's initial disclosures. SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER: Nationwide reincorporates its prior objections and further objects to the extent this request seeks irrelevant information, such as information about other properties Plaintiffs insured through Nationwide. As part of its initial disclosures, Nationwide produced its claim file (Nationwide 000001-002923), including the SIU file (002924-002963) and XactAnalysis file (002964-005961), for Plaintiffs' insurance claim. ECF No. 21 at 20–21. The Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to “... an accounting of all file[s] maintained regarding the plaintiff(s) by Nationwide.” ECF No. 36 at 6. Nationwide argues that to the extent that Plaintiff was seeking files maintained by counsel, such information was privileged. First American Title Ins. Co. v. Bowles Rice LLP, No. 1:16-cv-219, 2017 WL 6329953, at *8–9 (N.D. W.Va. Dec. 11, 2017). Regarding other claim files, Nationwide argued that “files unrelated to Plaintiffs' insurance claim, such as files relating to the other properties and insurance policies Plaintiffs obtained from Nationwide, are irrelevant.” ECF No. 33 at 18. *8 At the hearing, the discussions were narrowed as to whether there were any other claim files that Nationwide possessed concerning the Plaintiffs. Nationwide agreed to further investigate any and all claims brought by Plaintiffs on a policy issued by Nationwide, and to disclose them to Plaintiffs. Accordingly, the Motion to Compel Nationwide to supplement its responses to Interrogatory 14 is GRANTED IN PART, and to the extent that Nationwide possesses other claim files involving Plaintiffs, Nationwide shall identify all claim files where Plaintiffs made a claim on a policy issued by Nationwide. 7. Interrogatory 15 INTERROGATORY NO. 15: Please list what qualifications and training Nationwide requires of its adjusters to adjust and investigate residential fire loss claims in West Virginia. (REINCORPORATED FROM INT. 11) ANSWER: Objection. Nationwide objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and seeking information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, this Interrogatory seeks information about training provided to employees who had nothing to do with handling Plaintiffs' insurance claim. The Interrogatory is not limited in temporal scope or subject matter. Further, the Request seeks confidential information regarding employees of Nationwide who have not authorized the release of such information to third parties such as Plaintiffs. Subject to and without waiving these objections, upon entry of a suitable discovery Protective Order, Nationwide will produce its training records for Defendant Nelson. ECF No. 21 at 21. The Plaintiffs argue that answers to a request for qualifications and training is discoverable information, and cites in support to Mid-State Auto., Inc. v. Harco National Insurance Company, v. Harco Nat'l Ins. Co., No. 2:19-CV-00407, 2020 WL 1488741, at *2 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 25, 2020). Further, despite Nationwide's promise to disclose the materials pertaining to co-defendant Nelson, they have failed to do so. ECF No. 36 at 6. In its Response to the Motion to Compel, Nationwide supplements its prior answer by asserting that West Virginia law requires adjusters to have a license. ECF No. 33 at 19; See also W.Va. Code § 33-12B-2. Further, Nationwide also agreed to provide the training information for co-defendant Dwayne Nelson upon entry of an appropriate protective order. ECF No. 33 at 19. Although a Protective Order was entered on October 18, 2023, this information has not been provided. The undersigned finds that the qualifications and training for claims handlers employed by Nationwide involved in the adjustment of Plaintiff's claim are indeed relevant and proportional. Accordingly, the undersigned GRANTS IN PART the Motion to Compel as to Interrogatory 15 and orders Nationwide to supplement its answers with any hiring qualifications and any mandated training requirements for claims handlers involved in adjusting Plaintiff's fire loss claim at issue herein. 8. Interrogatory 16 INTERROGATORY NO. 16: At any time during the last 10 (ten) years, has Defendant Nationwide been sued for common law or statutory violations involving wrongful failure to settle, delay of payments, failure to investigate, or any other extra-contractual claims handling matter in the State of West Virginia? If so, for each lawsuit please provide the following information: *9 a. the name of the plaintiff(s) bringing the suit; b. the case number; c. the jurisdiction in which the suit was filed; d. how the lawsuit was resolved; and e. a description of the claims at issue. ANSWER: Objection. Nationwide objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad and seeking information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, the time period requested is unreasonable and will not further the interests of this case, and Plaintiffs' request is not limited to complaints in the State of West Virginia pertaining to first party, fire property damage claims arising under homeowners policies of insurance in West Virginia. Nationwide further objects to the extent that this request would require it to violate the terms of any settlement agreements entered into by the parties to those cases. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Nationwide identifies the following information relating to lawsuits filed against it in the State of West Virginia during the past five (5) years that pertain to first-party property damage claims for fire losses arising under West Virginia homeowners insurance policies:[2] ECF No. 21 at 23–24. The Plaintiffs argue that “the law in the Northern District does not support [the Defendant's] attempts to limit discovery regarding prior residential fire loss complaints.” ECF No. 36 at 7. They argue that “information about all prior complaints is relevant to show a general business practice in WVUTPA actions because prior complaints bear directly on an insurance company's claims handling procedures regardless of whether the complaint arises out of the same type of policy.” Paull Assocs. Realty, LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 5:13-CV-80, 2014 WL 12596397, at *9 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 9, 2014). Plaintiffs claim that Paull Assocs. also supports the proposition that the relevant information is discoverable dating back ten years. ECF No. 36 at 7; see also Paull Assocs., 2014 WL 12596397, at *9. Nationwide argues that the request as written was overbroad, and that McCormick v. Allstate Ins. Co., 505 S.E.2d 454, 460 (1998) provides that “information regarding how an insurance company handles other claims is admissible if it is sufficiently similar to the insured's experiences to show a pattern of claims handling.” Id. at 460. Further, Nationwide argued that a five-year window of discoverable information is sufficient pursuant to Patterson v. Westfield Ins. Co., No. 5:19-CV-17, 2019 WL 11254357 (N.D. W.Va. Nov. 25, 2019) (emphasis added), which held: Given the speed with which business practices change, the Court would conclude that claims which arose ten (10) years ago are not likely to provide relevant information to the issues herein. As such, the Court is satisfied that a period of five (5) years will provide Plaintiff with the discovery needed and appropriately sought and is not so overly broad in time as to force Defendant to provide irrelevant information. *10 Id. at 7. In Paull, the dispute involved a professional liability policy, and the court found that: “Because prior complaints are relevant to show a general business practice of mishandling claims, prior complaints arising under all similarly handled policies are relevant to Plaintiff's WVUTPA claims ... [a]ccordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to information about prior complaints stemming from all professional liability insurance policies in West Virginia from 2008 to the date of filing the complaint.” Paull Assocs., 2014 WL 12596397, at *9 (emphasis added). The McCormick court similarly limited discovery to “sufficiently similar” claims. McCormick, 505 S.E.2d at 460. The Court finds that discovery related to disclosure of lawsuits in this matter should be limited to first-party property damage claims for fire losses arising under West Virginia homeowners' insurance policies and the timeframe should be limited to five years pursuant to Patterson. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's Motion as to this Interrogatory is GRANTED IN PART, and Nationwide shall provide all such information dating back five years from the filing of the complaint to the extent that this information has not already been provided. 9. Interrogatory 17 INTERROGATORY NO. 17: Please state if depositions have been taken of defendant Nationwide's employee(s), agent(s), representative(s), adjuster(s), manager(s) or other personnel who participated, supervised and/or managed the claims personnel involved in the plaintiff's claim for insurance benefits which is the subject matter of the instant suit. Please also state whether a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of the defendant was taken regarding any matter relevant to the claim or defense of any party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of the electronic transcript and/or video of said deposition. If so, please identify the lawsuit with particularity, the names of the parties, where suit was filed, the identity of counsel for the parties, the name of the person deposed, and the state in which they were deposed. You may limit your answer to cases alleging violations of West Virginia insurance law. ANSWER: Objection. This Interrogatory contains multiple discrete subparts constituting individual interrogatories. Nationwide further objects to this Interrogatory as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and seeking information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, this Interrogatory is unlimited in temporal scope and subject matter, and depositions taken in other cases are not admissible in this one and do not bear on the claims or defenses of any party in this case. Nationwide further objects to providing Rule 30(b)(6) depositions “regarding any matter relevant to the claim or defense of any party” as it calls for legal conclusions and speculation. Subject to and without waiving these objections, Nationwide states that it does not maintain a central database of depositions of its employees and it is not in possession of any listing of depositions taken of the individuals involved in the underlying claims handling. *11 ECF No. 21 at 25. The Plaintiffs argue that the requested information is relevant and proportional to showing the general business practice element found in the WVUTPA. ECF No. 36 at 7. Nationwide argues that this Interrogatory would not lead to information sufficiently similar to the case at hand, and thus is substantially overbroad, potentially irrelevant, and not proportional to the needs of the case. ECF No. 33 at 22. Nationwide further argues that McCormick controls and “information regarding how an insurance company handles other claims is admissible if it is sufficiently similar to the insured's experiences to show a pattern of claims handling.” McCormick, 505 S.E.2d at 460. The Court finds that as written, the Interrogatory is overbroad, and the responsive information would be neither relevant nor proportional to the needs of the case. Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion as to this Interrogatory. B. Plaintiff's Motion [ECF No. 22] to Compel Production of Documents 1. Request 1 REQUEST NO. 1: Provide a complete copy of the Claims File(s) for John Alexander Burgess and Sylvia Santos Cruz, claim number: 429816-GL, policy number 9247HR035185, incident date December 31, 2020, including a copy of the file jacket (inside and out), including but not limited to, statements taken, all photographs, video recordings, all audio recordings and copies of all payments made. A. For each and every portion of the file contained on computer please print a paper copy of each portion. B. If any information has been deleted from either the paper file or the computer file, please identify what documents/information was deleted, the contents of the same, and the reason for deletion. C. Include instructions regarding investigation and coverage questions. RESPONSE: Nationwide objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Subject to and without waiving this objection, Nationwide previously produced its claim file as part of its initial disclosures. Nationwide reasserts the objections set forth on its privilege log produced in conjunction with that file. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Nationwide reincorporates its prior objections. As part of its initial disclosures, Nationwide produced its claim file (Nationwide 000001-002923), including the SIU file (002924-002963) and XactAnalysis file (002964-005961). ECF No. 22 at 6. In the Motion to Compel and argument at the evidentiary hearing, Plaintiffs specifically seek “instructions regarding investigation and coverage questions” to adjusters. Id. at 6–7. The Plaintiffs argue that coverage issues are not part of the claim file as Nationwide asserts. They cite in support to W.Va. C.S.R. § 114-14-3, which provides that “[t]he insurer's claim file” shall include “all notes and work papers pertaining to the claim.” Nationwide argues that they have already provided a complete claims file, subject to the redaction of privileged materials identified in the privilege log. ECF No. 33 at 23. Nationwide maintains that separate instructions regarding investigation and coverage instructions do not exist, and that its claims file was created in compliance with W.Va. C.S.R. § 114-14-3. Id. *12 The undersigned finds that Nationwide has produced documents responsive to this request and accordingly, the Motion to Compel as to Request for Production 1 is DENIED. 2. Request 3 REQUEST NO. 3: With respect to the instant case produce copies of all correspondence, documents, memoranda, minutes of meetings, memos or other information produced or received by Defendant Nationwide in any way related to John A. Burgess and Sylvia S. Cruz, claim number: 429816-GL, policy number 9247HR035185, incident date December 31, 2020. RESPONSE: Nationwide objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information protected by the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Nationwide further objects to the phrase “in any way related” as vague, overbroad, and calls for a legal conclusion. Subject to and without waiving these objections, relevant documents and information are contained in the claim file and SIU file. Nationwide previously produced these files as part of its initial disclosures. Nationwide reasserts the objections set forth on its privilege log produced in conjunction with those files. SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE: Nationwide reincorporates its prior objections. As part of its initial disclosures, Nationwide produced its claim file (Nationwide 000001-002923), including the SIU file (002924-002963), and XactAnalysis file (002964-005961). ECF No. 22 at 7. Plaintiff argues that the privilege log produced in response to this request should be reviewed in camera. However, the Plaintiff failed to identify a specific challenge to any document identified in Nationwide's privilege log. Nationwide argues that the privilege log provided includes documents containing attorney-client privilege, work product, and otherwise confidential or irrelevant information. ECF No. 33 at 23. Nationwide provided the privilege log and unredacted documents for the Court's in camera review after the hearing. Following an in camera review of the unredacted documents contained in Nationwide's privilege log, the undersigned finds that Nationwide's asserted privileges are only applicable to the documents identified in the portion of the privilege log attached hereto as Appendix A. Therefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff's Motion as to this request to the extent that Nationwide shall provide the unredacted versions of the documents originally withheld as privileged, other than those documents specifically identified in Appendix A attached hereto. 3. Requests 5, 8, and 9 As Requests for Production 5, 8, and 9 seek the production of documents that are similar, if not identical, the undersigned will review these requests as one.[3] REQUEST NO. 5: Please produce the employment and personnel files for every person working on behalf of Defendant Nationwide identified in your answers to the above interrogatories. Please redact all social security numbers and other personal, identification information. Plaintiff is seeking information on the person's education, training, discipline, and pay structure. RESPONSE: Nationwide objects to this Request as overbroad and seeking information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of the case. Specifically, this Request is unlimited in temporal scope and seeks information about employees who had nothing to do with adjusting Plaintiffs' insurance claim, played only a limited role in handling Plaintiffs' claim, or handled portions of Plaintiffs' claim that are not at issue in this case. Moreover, the pay structure of Nationwide's employees has nothing to do with this case. This Request also seeks confidential information regarding employees of Nationwide who have not authorized the release of such information to third parties such as Plaintiffs. *13 Subject to and without waiving these objections, upon entry of a suitable Protective Order by the Court, Nationwide will produce the education, training, and discipline records (if any) for Dwayne Nelson and Kellie Strahotsky during the relevant claim handling period.[4] ECF No. 22 at 9. REQUEST NO. 8: Produce a complete copy of the personnel file for every adjuster, employee or agent who participated in the adjusting, handling or investigation of Plaintiff's claim, including incentive, corrective actions, reprimands, salaries and bonuses. RESPONSE: See Nationwide's objections and response to Request No. 5. ECF No. 22 at 13. REQUEST NO. 9: Produce all documents, surveys, analytics, recordings or compilations of any sort, and all communications emails, letters, correspondence, writings, or electronically stored information related to adjuster, supervisor, and manager bonus plans, profit sharing plans, or performance incentive plans in effect for employees handling claims in West Virginia from 2018 to the present. RESPONSE: Objection. This request seeks information that is irrelevant and not proportional to the needs of this case. The pay structure of Nationwide's employees has nothing to do with this case. ECF No. 22 at 17. The Plaintiffs argue that in relation to these requests, “to date the defendant has produced no materials of any kind whatsoever.” ECF No. 36 at 9. They claim they are entitled to evaluations, education, training, discipline, and pay structure for all Nationwide employees involved in this claim. Id. In support, they cite to Mid-State Auto., Inc. v. Harco Nat'l Ins. Co., No. 2:19-CV-00407, 2020 WL 1488741 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 25, 2020), which held that employees' performance reviews were discoverable. Id. at 9. They also cite to Weller v. American Home Assur. Co., WL 1097883 (N.D. W.Va. 2007), wherein the Court held that according to the Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act, employment information is discoverable, and the Court required that the Defendant to “produce the portions of the personnel files pertaining to training, experience, work record, and qualifications.” Id. at *6–7. Further, Plaintiffs argue that performance incentives are discoverable to show a general business practice of unfair claim settlement practices. Timm Grandview, LLC v. Amguard Ins. Co., 8:20CV197, at *7 (D. Neb. Mar. 23, 2021). This information, they claim, would help them to prove that Nationwide was acting in violation of a West Virginia law which provides that “[n]o insurer may offer incentives or compensate its employees, agents or contractors based on savings to the insurer as a result of improperly denying the payment of claims.” W.Va. Code § 114-14-6.15. In its response to Requests 5 and 8, Nationwide agreed to provide the requested information as to Dwayne Nelson and Kellie Strahotsky, the two claims handlers who actually handled Plaintiff's claim. ECF No. 33 at 26. Also, Nationwide contends that Plaintiffs' reliance on Weller to support their argument is inappropriate as Weller stands for the proposition that personnel information is subject to discovery “only in limited circumstances” and requires a showing that “(1) the material sought is clearly relevant and (2) the need for discovery is compelling because the information sought is not otherwise readily obtainable.” ECF No. 33 at 26; see also Weller, No. 3:05-cv-90, 2007 WL 1097883, at *6 (N.D. W.Va. Apr. 10, 2007). They argue that this standard is only met as to Nelson and Strahotsky, not the broader requested information of “employment and personnel files for every person working on behalf of Defendant Nationwide identified in your answers.” And, as the Nationwide points out, regarding Request 9, “Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel does not identify a single West Virginia case holding that an insurer's employees' compensation records are discoverable in this case.”[5] ECF No. 33 at 27. *14 The undersigned finds that the education, training, and disciplinary records of Nelson and Strahotsky are relevant and proportional to the needs of this action. For these reasons, and to the extent that Nationwide has not already done so, the Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion to Compel as to Requests for Production 5, 8, and 9, only in that Defendant Nationwide shall produce supplemental documents contained in the personnel files of Nelson and Strahotsky, specifically as to their education, training, and disciplinary records, if any, while employed at Nationwide. 4. Request 7 REQUEST NO. 7: Produce a complete copy, in electronic and written form, of all manuals, desk books, policies, procedures, codes of ethics, guidelines, company evaluation, and adjusting, pertaining to fire claims handling generally, and claims handling specifically related to West Virginia residential fire claims, from 2013 to present. RESPONSE: See Nationwide's objections and response to Interrogatory 10. Additionally, this Request is overbroad in that it seeks documents that had nothing to do with Nationwide's handling of Plaintiffs' claim. Subject to, and without waiving said objection, upon entry of a suitable Protective Order, Nationwide will produce its 2021 West Virginia claims manual relating to the handling of first-party property damage claims.[6] ECF No. 22 at 11–12. The Plaintiffs argue that the requested discovery is reasonable and despite Nationwide's promise to turn over the relevant files after entry of the protective order, “to date the defendant has produced nothing.” ECF No. 36 at 11. In support, they cite Paull Assocs. Realty, LLC v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 5:13-CV-80, 2014 WL 12596397, at *3 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 9, 2014) (requiring production of “[a]ll decisional manuals, directives, procedures, rules, regulations, authoritative treatises, sources, resources and all other documents relied upon, used, utilized, considered, consulted or referred to in the handling of the underlying claims”). At the evidentiary hearing and in their Response to the Motions to Compel, Nationwide repeated the offer to produce the 2021 West Virginia claims manual relating to the handling of first-party property damage claims. However, Nationwide contends that the Request as written it is overbroad, arguing that “outdated materials that were not used to handle Plaintiffs' insurance claim are not relevant or proportional to the needs of this case.” ECF No. 33 at 28. Nationwide at the hearing argued for a five-year period of discovery. Nationwide once again cites to Patterson, which held: “Given the speed with which business practices change, the Court would conclude that claims which arose ten (10) years ago are not likely to provide relevant information to the issues herein. As such, the Court is satisfied that a period of five (5) years will provide Plaintiff with the discovery needed and appropriately sought and is not so overly broad in time as to force Defendant to provide irrelevant information.” Patterson v. Westfield Ins. Co., No. 5:19-CV-17, 2019 WL 11254357 (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 25, 2019), aff'd, No. 5:19-CV-17, 2020 WL 6939811, at *7 (N.D.W. Va. Jan. 6, 2020). The Court finds that training materials as they relate to individual claims handlers are discoverable. The Court GRANTS IN PART the Motion as to this Request, and Nationwide shall produce the claims training materials relating to first-party property damage claims sustained from fire damage in the state of West Virginia dating back five years from the filing of the complaint, to the extent that this information has not previously been produced. IV. CONCLUSION *15 For the reasons set forth above and for the reasons set forth on the record, Plaintiff's Motions [ECF No. 21, 22] to Compel are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Defendant Nationwide is ORDERED to comply with the terms contained herein and supplement its responses with the relevant answers and documents by Friday, January 12, 2023. Any party may, within fourteen (14) days of this Order, file with the Clerk of the Court written objections identifying the portions of the Order to which objection is made, and the basis for such objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). A copy of such objections should also be submitted to the Honorable Gina M. Groh, United States District Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845–48 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record, as provided in the Administrative Procedures for Electronic Case Filing in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. V. APPENDIX A Footnotes [1] On October 13, 2023, Judge Groh entered an Order [ECF No. 23] of Referral on Plaintiff's Motions to the undersigned for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7.02(c). [2] In its Answer, Nationwide provided a chart containing the name of the Plaintiff, the case number, the jurisdiction, resolution, and description of the claim. [3] Nationwide asserts that Request for Production 8 was duplicative of Request for Production 5, and that Request for Production 9 sought information requested as part of Requests 5 and 8. In their Reply [ECF No. 36 at 9–11] in support of their Motions to Compel, the Plaintiffs argued the Requests as one. At the evidentiary hearing of December 14, 2023, the parties argued Requests for Production 5, 8, and 9 in conjunction with each other. [4] Although a Protective Order was entered on October 18, 2023, the information which Nationwide offered has not been produced. [5] The only case Plaintiffs cited to support their Request for performance based compensation incentives is Timm Grandview, LLC v. Amguard Ins. Co., 8:20CV197, at *7 (D. Neb. Mar. 23, 2021). However, the Plaintiffs also cite to a District of South Dakota case they claim supports the relevance of compensation information to insurance bad faith litigation generally. See Anspach v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., Civ. No. 10-5080-JLV, 2011 WL 3862267, at *9 (D.S.D. Aug. 31, 2011). [6] Although Nationwide agreed to produce documents responsive to this Request following the entry of a suitable Protective Order, which was entered on October 18, 2023, the undersigned is unaware of any such production of documents.