United States District Court, D. Kansas
PIPELINE PRODUCTIONS, INC., BACKWOOD ENTERPRISES, LLC, OK PRODUCTIONS, INC., and BRETT MOSIMAN, Plaintiffs,
THE MADISON COMPANIES, LLC, and HORSEPOWER ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, Defendants.
P. O'Hara U.S. Magistrate Judge
matter comes before the court upon defendants' Motion to
Compel Insurance Agreements (ECF No. 113). For the following
reasons, defendants' motion is granted.
action arises from a failed music concert, the Thunder on the
Mountain music festival. Plaintiffs allege that they entered
into a joint venture with the defendants to own and produce
the music festival. Plaintiffs contend that defendants
reneged on the agreement, and the festival had to be
cancelled. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages
as well as attorneys' fees. Defendants have filed
counterclaims against plaintiffs. They seek declaratory and
injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and
seek production of insurance agreements that plaintiffs were
obligated to produce pursuant to Fed. F. Civ. P.
26(a)(1)(A)(iv). Defendants contend that plaintiffs have
acknowledged that such policies exist, but they have
unilaterally determined that those policies do not apply to
this case. Defendants argue that the policies must be
produced so that they can determine whether they apply here.
response, plaintiffs suggested that defendants' motion
was unnecessary because they “do not have any insurance
policies under which an insurance business may be liable to
satisfy any judgment which might be entered against them in
this case.” They note they did not make the coverage
determination themselves, but rather they relied upon their
insurance agent. Accordingly, they contend that
defendants' motion is moot because they have produced the
necessary insurance policies.
reply, defendants again contend that plaintiffs have not
produced all relevant insurance policies and certificates.
Defendants argue that several policies may exist that provide
coverage and it is not up to plaintiffs to make the decision
on the possibility of coverage. Defendants assert that the
court should require plaintiffs to produce all policies and
certificates from May 2012 to the present, regardless of
whether plaintiffs believe they provide coverage for any of
defendants' claims or act to offset or mitigate damage
parties made efforts to resolve this matter prior to filing
the motion to compel, but were unable to do so.
26(a)(1)(A)(iv) provides as follows:
Except as exempted by Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or as otherwise
stipulated or ordered by the court, a party must, without
awaiting a discovery request, provide to the other parties .
. . (iv) for inspection and copying as under Rule 34, any
insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be
liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the
action or to indemnify or reimburse for payments made to
satisfy the judgment.
rule requires a party to produce “any insurance
agreement” that “may provide
coverage.” The rule is absolute and does not provide
any showing of relevance. The Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 26
provide that the rule “resolves the issue in favor of
disclosure” because “[d]isclosure of insurance
coverage will enable counsel for both sides to make the same
realistic appraisal of the case, so that settlement and
litigation strategy are based on knowledge and not
speculation.” A party may not claim that its insurance
policies do not provide coverage and then refuse to permit
its adversary to see those policies so that the ...