Buy This Entire Record For
Miller v. York Risk Services Group
United States District Court, D. Arizona
August 19, 2014
LAURIE MILLER, BRIAN DIMAS, KIM MILLS, ANTHONY SOZA, BRUCE CAMPBELL, KELLIE BOWERS, TIM HUNTER, BRIAN SAYLOR, MICHAEL SCHAMADAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF HIS WIFE, BRANDI SCHAMADAN, Plaintiffs,
YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP and FRANK GATES SERVICE COMPANY, Defendants.
ORDER AND OPINION
JOHN W. SEDWICK, Senior District Judge.
I. MOTIONS PRESENTED
At docket 256, plaintiffs move to compel defendants to respond to certain discovery requests. Defendants' response is at docket 303. Plaintiffs' reply is at docket 316. Oral argument was requested but would not assist the court.
Plaintiffs are or were employed as City of Phoenix ("City") firefighters. Defendants are third-party insurance administrators for the City who adjusted City employees workers' compensation claims. Plaintiffs contend that defendants, with the assistance and knowledge of certain City employees, wrongfully denied and delayed their workers' compensation benefits.
In their Fourth Amended Complaint,  plaintiffs plead four claims. First, all plaintiffs allege that defendants, acting in concert with the City, fraudulently denied their workers' compensation benefits in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, 1964, and 1965. Second, all plaintiffs allege that defendants violated Arizona law by aiding and abetting the City's breach of the City's contractual duty of good faith and fair dealing. In the third claim, plaintiff Michael Schamadan pleads that defendants aided and abetted the City's breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing as it relates to Brandi Schamadan, thus causing him to suffer a loss of consortium. The fourth claim is also one pled only by Michael Schamadan. In that claim Schamadan alleges that defendants intentionally or recklessly inflicted severe emotional distress upon him.
In their motion at docket 256, plaintiffs ask the court to order defendant York to respond to three specific requests for production as follows:
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 13:
The documents related to Defendant's staffing models, memos, or analysis for administering benefits under the Contract, including any analysis or discussion related to the number of employees necessary to staff the City of Phoenix contract, workloads, and productivity.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 14:
The documents related to audit staffing models for the City of Phoenix Contract.
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 15:
The documents relating to adjuster turnover and personnel analysis for adjusters working the ...