Preview
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COU!
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
JAMES and CAROLYN BRANSCUM,
Plaintiffs,
v.
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC.; FARMERS INSURANCE
EXCHANGE; FARMERS GROUP, INC.
and STEVE BURRIS d/b/a STEVE
BURRIS INSURANCE AGENCY,
Defendants.
OD CR UP 60? UO? OR OU GOD Wn CED LD CD
Case No. CJ-2020-227
Judge John G. Canavan, Jr.
RANDY and SHEILA PERKINS,
Plaintiffs,
vy.
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
INC.; FARMERS INSURANCE
EXCHANGE; FARMERS GROUP, INC.
and STEVE BURRIS d/b/a STEVE
BURRIS INSURANCE AGENCY,
Defendants.
OD 101 RU CO? OR OO DD COD a to
Case Ng. CJ-2020-
Judge John G. Canavan, Jr.
PLAINTIFFS’ COMBINED RESPONSE TO FARMERS’
CROSS MOTION TO DETERMINE DEPOSITION DATES
Plaintiffs James and Carolyn Branscum and Randy and Shelia Perkins (collectively
“Plaintiffs”) offer their response to Farmers’ Cross-Motion to Determine Dates for Depositions
(“Motion”). As has become the unfortunate standard, Farmers’ Motion operates primarily as an
attack on Plaintiffs’ counsel. Farmers’ Motion contends Plaintiffs have not sat for depositionbecause (1) “they would prefer not to provide any discovery until they’ve driven up attorneys’ fees
well beyond any recoverable measure of damage in this case” (Mtn. at 1); (2) Plaintiffs contend
they “are above the law” (Mtn. at 1); (3) it is “at odds with Plaintiffs’ coercive litigation strategy,
which is designed to harass rather than seek the truth” (Mtn. at 6); (4) Plaintiffs seek “to use the
judicial process to sanction their scorched earth litigation strategy” (Mtn. at 6); and (5) “it doesn’t
fit with [Plaintiffs’ counsel’s] strategy to escalate costs in 52 cases in hopes of eliciting a
disproportionately high settlement offer” (Mtn. at 8).
Farmers’ Motion contains more insults than it does citations to legal authority. To support
its position that Plaintiffs must be deposed before any other deposition can proceed (including
those already ordered by the Court), Farmers argues Plaintiffs must be deposed before discovery
can otherwise proceed because “‘it just makes sense that they should go first” and “this is the usual
way to proceed” (Mtn. at 9). While casting barbs for what it classifies as Plaintiffs’ delay, Farmers
makes scant mention of the fact it is still refusing to present its executives for deposition, despite
the fact the Court ordered those depositions over 60 days ago, and Farmers continues to withhold
Plaintiffs’ full claims and underwriting information concerning Plaintiffs.
Fortunately, despite Farmers’ impudent approach and opinions as to the “usual way” of
proceeding, the Court has since granted (in part) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider.’ In so doing,
the Court struck Farmers’ desired requirement that no depositions may occur unless and until
Farmers has deposed Plaintiffs. To the extent Farmers’ original Motion sought to deny Plaintiffs’
Motion to Reconsider Entry of Scheduling Order, it is now moot. As such, all that remains before
the Special Master is Farmers’ Cross-Motion to Determine Dates for Depositions. Plaintiffs
' As explained in Plaintiffs’ Response to Farmers’ “Advice to the Special Master”, a Journal Entry
on this Order is forthcoming.
2respectfully request the Special Master order all depositions that the Court has already-compelled
to take place within 15 days of this Order.
1 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES
A. There is No Reason to Further Delay the Court-Ordered Depositions of
Farmers’ Executives.
Over two months ago, on December 3, 2020, the Court overruled Farmers’ Motions to
Quash Farmers’ executives Jeff Dailey, Keith Daly, Tim Felks, and Rob Howard and ordered the
depositions to take place within 60 days, subject to the Special Master’s ability to amend that date.
See Ex. 1, Orders Overruling Farmers’ Motions to Quash. Farmers never moved the Special
Master to amend those dates and the 60 days have now come and gone due to Farmers’ efforts to
delay these court-ordered depositions. In opposing those depositions, Farmers made the same
general arguments it has made here. See Ex. 2, Excerpts from Def.’s Motion to Quash the
Deposition of Jeff Dailey at 5, 7 (arguing Mr. Dailey should not be deposed when Plaintiffs have
not been deposed yet). The Court disagreed and ordered the depositions of Farmers’ executive,
nonetheless. Moreover, the Court has since struck the originally-entered Scheduling Order.
Specifically, the Court partially granted Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider, preserving only the
original pre-trial and trial dates. Farmers is now attempting a third swing at this issue, hoping the
Special Master will impose deadlines not previously required by the Court and that it seeks as a
means of further delaying the depositions of its executives. Indeed, Farmers has sought this same
telief in two separate motions, both here and in its Motion for Status Conference Before the Special
Master, which is largely duplicative of Farmers’ cross-motion. Farmers has presented no binding
authority supporting its self-serving preference that Plaintiffs must be deposed before Farmers willpresent a single witness.? Nor has Farmers presented any justification as to why its executives
cannot be prepared and deposed in the near future. These depositions are Court-ordered and have
been for over 60 days. It is time they proceed.
B. Plaintiffs Will Sit for Deposition Once Farmers Produces Their Claims
Information and After Farmers’ Executives Are Deposed.
While Farmers portrays the Plaintiffs as “so badly” seeking to avoid deposition, Plaintiffs
have repeatedly made their position clear to Farmers. Mtn. at 10. Specifically, on December 8,
2020, counsel for the parties (Mr. Marr and Mr. Leach) had a lengthy conference to try and reach
agreements to expedite the production of all written discovery and seat all witnesses for
depositions. See Ex. 3, Dec. 4, 2020, Email. During this exchange, counsel for Plaintiffs made
clear that he would be happy to present Plaintiffs for deposition affer Farmers provides Plaintiffs
with their full claims, underwriting materials and claims specific information. Unfortunately,
Farmers rejected this proposal. It would be completely prejudicial for Plaintiffs to be required to
sit for a deposition without having the benefit of the documents pertaining to the claim at issue
with which Farmers will undoubtedly use to examine Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are not trying to hide the
ball; to the contrary, Plaintiffs have requested this information in advance of their depositions to
ensure their deposition is not riddled with unnecessary surprise or speculation as to the specifics
of Plaintiffs’ experience with Farmers. While Farmers finds this position to be apparently
? Farmers cites to a 1993 Advisory Committee note to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to
supposedly support its argument. That note deals specifically with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(2) regarding
expert disclosures in anticipation of trial. Without any support, Farmers conclusively claims that
the “principle” of this note “extend[s] to the depositions of Plaintiffs.” Mtn at 9. Ironically, an
earlier Committee note upon the addition of subdivision (d) to Rule 26 makes clear one of the
principal effects of the Rule is to “eliminate any fixed priority in the sequence of discovery” and
makes specific reference to depositions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, Advisory Committee Notes, 1970
Amendment, subdiv. (d). Oklahoma’s Rule 3226(d) mirrors its federal counterpoint.
4frustrating and outright intolerable, Plaintiffs have been consistent since the outset of this litigation.
At no point has Farmers provided that supplementation. When it does, then Plaintiffs, true to their
word, will indeed be made available for deposition within two weeks after the receipt of their full
claims information, or at some date thereafter that is agreeable to the parties.
This is not a situation where the outstanding documents have not been requested or even a
situation where the existence of the information sought is unknown to opposing counsel or their
client. Rather, Farmers is intentionally withholding production of the outstanding documents
(including the complete claim file) that was requested by Plaintiffs months ago. Significantly,
Farmers did not seek a protective order from this Court in response to Plaintiffs’ discovery, but
rather chose to abdicate its obligations under the discovery code on nothing more than its unilateral
belief that everything is “confidential.”
Notwithstanding the impropriety of Farmers’ actions, Plaintiffs should not be compelled
to make their case on whatever scraps of information they happen to have. What is more, nothing
allows Farmers to withhold production of critical discovery from Plaintiffs, and then use the very
same information to its own advantage to prepare for the deposition, while denying the same
opportunity to the opponent. For example, in Roberts v. Americable Int'l, Inc., 883 F.Supp. 499,
501 (E.D.Cal. 1995) the plaintiff secretly recorded a number of conversations with co-workers in
preparation for an employment discrimination and wrongful termination suit against her employer.
No formal request for the tapes was made in discovery, but rather the existence of the tapes were
revealed at a deposition. /d. The plaintiff, along with averring tangential procedural issues, argued
that she should not be required to produce the tapes prior to deposing the recorded speakers, simply
because the tapes would only be used to impeach the witnesses.The court found that the spirit and purpose of the discovery rules would be violated by
allowing the plaintiff to ambush potential deponents with tapes at their depositions. /d. at 505. The
court also noted that it would be inherently unfair to subject the employees to a deposition, where
“the partial purpose of which is simply to create inconsistencies or otherwise set up impeachment”
without “having had a chance to review the tapes ~ the same opportunity that the plaintiff had prior
to her deposition.” /d. Further, the court quoting rule 26(c), which allows the court to enter an
order protecting parties from “annoyance” or “oppression,” found the sequence of discovery
should proceed in a manner to “promote fair and just litigation practices,” and as such “taking the
defendant’s deposition prior to his having an opportunity to review all tapes is annoying or
harassing at the very least.” /d. (emphasis added).
The same is true here. Plaintiffs seek to give their depositions consistent with the Oklahoma
Discovery Code, which serves to “make trial less of a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair
contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.” State ex rel.
Protective Health Servs. v. Billings Fairchild Ctr., Inc., 2007 OK CIV APP 24, J 17, 158 P.3d
484, 489. Indeed, nothing allows Farmers to withhold production of critical discovery from
Plaintiffs, and then use the very same information to its own advantage to prepare for the
depositions, while denying the same opportunity to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ claim and underwriting
file contains a diary of conversations had between the insurer/agent and insured. Additionally, it
warehouses the information considered by the insurer when the policy issued and in the resolution
of the claim. As identified by the Oklahoma Supreme Court,
The nature of the business of an insurance company is to investigate an injury and
potential claim and after a review of factual data underlying the claim, to determine
whether or not to pay .. . Rule 26(b)(3) was not designed to insulate insurance
companies ftom discovery merely because they always deal with potential claims
as this would relieve them of a substantial portion of the obligations of discovery
6imposed on parties generally that are designed to aid the fact finding process and
discourage gamesmanship which would reward parties for hiding or obscuring
potentially significant facts.
Hall v. Goodwin, 1989 OK 88, { 11, 775 P.2d 291 (internal citations omitted). Depriving Plaintiffs
of access to the same conversations, details about their house and procurement of the earthquake
policy—all of which Farmers undoubtedly intends to depose them is inherently prejudicial and is
at the very least creates for Plaintiffs an undue annoyance, oppression and/or burden. See 12 0.S.
§3226(C\(1).
Indeed, even a witness honestly trying to recall events truthfully would be rattled by
demands to attest to the contents of a document they have never seen before, much less swear to
its accuracy. What is more, a witness is less likely to refute inaccuracies or even challenge Farmers’
version of reality if they are not provided an opportunity to review the documents in advance of
their deposition. This is especially true given the fact that there are many documents that have been
obtained in Traylor v. Foremost, et al, Case. No. 2017-366 (Oklahoma County), and Good v.
Farmers, et al, Case No. 2017-128 (Payne County)? that bare directly on Plaintiff's claims that
Farmers has refused to produce in this case. Compelling Plaintiff to testify prior to Farmers"
production of the outstanding documents is inherently prejudicial and is at the very least annoying,
harassing, oppressive or burdensome. 12 O.S, §3226(C)(1).
Plaintiffs’ counsel have fought this same fight with Farmers twice before and proved
successful on both occasions. In point, the Honorable Daman Cantrell in Lucas v. Farmers, et al.,
3 Judge Corley in the Good case has allowed use discovery obtained in Good in other litigation or
Jurisdictions so long as the documents and information are kept under seal and not disseminated
to the public. See Ex. 4, Oct. 1, 2020, Hrg. Tr. (Good), 151:7-17. However, that allowance is not
the equivalent of Farmers having produced all discoverable documents in this matter. Specifically,
use of the Good discovery in this case is restricted and requires any and all Good documents be
sealed without allowance for discretion by this Court. /d. at 10-13.
7Case. No. CJ-17-1262 (Tulsa County), and the Honorable Don Andrews in Deacon y. Farmers, et
al., Case No. CJ-2018-1981 decided this precise issue. Like here, Farmers pressed for the
deposition of the plaintiff before it had produced the outstanding discovery owed to the plaintiff,
asserting the current discovery dispute had no bearing on the plaintiff's ability to testify. However,
each Court disagreed, and sustained each of the motions to quash advising the plaintiff would not
be required to appear for deposition until the outstanding discovery withheld by Farmers had been
produced. See Ex. 5, Lucas Order; and Deacon Minute Order. Plaintiffs here ask only to be
afforded that same courtesy.
Plaintiff is more than willing to proceed with their depositions — however the basic notions
of fairness and integrity of the litigation itself require Farmers produce the outstanding discovery
first. West v. Cajun's Wharf, Inc., 1988 OK 92, 770 P.2d 558, 563. The policy of the law is that all
issues in a case must be identified in a seasonable manner. The purpose of this requirement is to
avoid trial-by-ambush, in which a party is surprised and then not given a reasonable time to
effectively defend itself. Corman v. H-30 Drilling, Inc., 2001 OK 92, J 13, 40 P.3d 1051, 1054, as
corrected (Mar. 21, 2002). Allowing Farmers to quell production of the complete claim file, or
any of the requested documents for that matter, until affer Plaintiffs have testified undeniably stand
these well-established principles on its head.
II. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED
Considering the Court has granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider (in part), stricken the
previous Scheduling Order with the exception of the pre-trial and trial dates, and granted Plaintiffs
Motion to Quash, Plaintiffs request the Special Master Order all previously-ordered depositions to
take place within 15 days of this order.Respectfully Submitted,
Ci
Jeff D. Marr, OBA No. 16080
Carole Dulisse, OBA No. 18047
MARR LAW FIRM
4301 Southwest Third Street, Suite 110
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
Telephone: (405) 236-8000
Facsimile: (405) 236-8025
Jjeffdmarr@marrlawfirm.com
cdulisse@marrlawfirm.com
-and-
Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350
Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576
Revell Parrish, OBA No. 30205
WHITTEN BURRAGE
512. N. Broadway, Ste. 300
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 516-7800
Facsimile: (405) 516-7859
-and-
Chad E. Thrig, OBA No. 19491
Nick Marr, OBA No. 34284
NIX PATTERSON, LLP
3600-B North Capital of TX Hwy.
Austin, Texas 78746
Telephone: (512) 328-5300
Facsimile: (512) 328-5333
Email: cihrig@nixlaw.com
nmarr@nixlaw.com
Attorneys for PlaintiffsCERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This is to certify a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was emailed
and mailed, United States Mail, Postage Prepaid, on this 8" day of February, 2021, to the following
counsel of record:
Phil Richards
Kelsie M. Sullivan
RICHARDS & CONNOR
12" Floor, Park Centre Building
525 S. Main Street
Tulsa, OK 74103
Telephone: (918) 585-2394
Facsimile: (918) 585-1499
Email: prichards@richardsconnor.com
ksullivan@richardsconnor.com
-and-
Clyde Muchmore
CROWE & DUNLEVY
324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
Telephone: (405) 235-7700
Facsimile: {405) 239-6651
Email: clyde.muchmore@crowedunlevy.com
Joe Vorndran
Stuart & Clover Law Firm
130 North Broadway, Suite 100
Shawnee, OK 74801
Telephone: (405) 275-0700
Facsimile: (405) 275-6805
Email: joe@stuartclover.com
Michael F. Lauderdale, OBA #14265
Drew Neville, OBA #6641
McAree & Tarr, P.C.
10th Floor, Two Leadership Square
211 North Robinson
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7103
Telephone: (405) 235-9621
Facsimile: (405) 235-0439
Email: michael.lauderdale@mcafeetaft.com
drew.neville@mcafeetaft.com
-and-
Mary Quinn Cooper OBA No. 11966
William S. Leach, OBA No. 14892
McAree & TAFT, P.C.
Williams Center Tower II
Two West Second Street, Suite 1100
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103
Telephone: (918) 587-0000
Facsimile: (918) 599-9317
Email: maryquinn.cooper@mcafeetaft.com
bill. leach@mcafeetaft.com
Attorneys for Defendants
Bradley C. West, OBA No. 13476
The West Law Firm
124 W. Highland ~ P.O. Box 698
Shawnee, OK 74802-0698
Telephone: (405) 275-0040
Facsimile: (405) 275-0052
Email: brad@thewestlawfirm.com
Attorney for Defendant, Steve Burris
d/b/a Steve Burris Insurance Agency, Inc.
101
Ca
JEFF D. MARR/CAROLE DULISSEINTHE DISTRICT CouRT oF PoTrawaTomiE counyvl L. E D
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
James and Carolyn Branscum,
Plaintiffs,
¥.
Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.;
Farmers Insurance Exchange;
Farmers Group, Inc., and Steve Burris,
d/b/a Steve Burris Insurance Agency,
Defendants.
Case No: CJ-2020-227
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
DEC 03 2020
BOTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, OK
VALERUE N. GEMTZEN, COURT CLERK
v____ eure
9 ER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
I D ROBERT HOW,
NOW on this 3 day of December, 2020, the above-styled and numbered cause came
before the undersigned Judge concerning Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Robert
Howard. All parties are present and appear by and through their counsel. Upon review of the
written briefs filed by the parties, and the Court having heard oral arguments and being otherwise
fully advised in the premises finds Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Robert Howard
is OVERRULED in its entirety. Defendants are hereby ordered to present Robert Howard for
deposition via Zoom wind. days.
THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that Defendants’
Motion to Quash the Deposition of Robert Howard is hereby OVERRULED, Defendants are
ordered to present Robert Howard for deposition via Zoom with 00 days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 3 day of December, 2020.
EXHIBIT
Po
Ly
feof.
fi QavedAh)
The Honorab Toh Canavan
JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURTIN THE DISTRICT CourT OF poTTawaTomie CounTY I L E D
STATE OF OKLAHOMA, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
James and Carolyn Branscum, DEC 0.3 99°9
POTTAWATOMIE County, ox
Plaintiffs, VaeaIE WN. DRLTZEN, cOuRT Q days.
THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that Defendants’
Motion to Quash the Deposition of Tim Felks is hereby OVERRULED. Defendants are ordered
to present Tim Felks for deposition via Zoom withinfg@ days. > wht” b Yofe a
ge, (A
IT IS SO ORDERED. Ww f ot (
«
Dated this 2 day of December, 2020.(VA.
The Honofdble Jqhn G. Canavan
JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURTFILED
IN THE DISTR
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNLY © CT COURT
STATE OF OKLAHOMA DEC 0.3 2070
POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY,
James and Carolyo Branscum, VALERIE M, BELTZEH, COURT Clee
Wt oeury
Plaintiffs,
ve
Case No: CJ-2020-227
Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.;
Farmers Insurance Exchange;
Farmers Group, luc., and Steve Burris,
d/b/a Steve Burris Jusurance Agency,
Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO QUASH THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JEFF DAILEY
NOW on this 3" day of December, 2020, the above-styled and numbered cause came
before the undersigned Judge concerning Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Jeff
Dailey. All parties are present and appear by and through their counsel. Upon review of the written
briefs filed by the parties, and the Court having beard oral arguments and being otherwise fully
advised in the premises finds Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Jeff Dailey is
OVERRULED in its entirety. Defendants are hereby ordered to present Jeff Dailey for deposition
via Zoom within(@) days.
THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that Defendants’
Motion to Quash the Deposition of Jeff Dailey is hereby OVERRULED. Defendants are ordered
to present Jeff Dailey for deposition via Zoom withing? days. WK bh
1
IT IS SO ORDERED. (4 aM, 9 ot
Dated this_ 2 day of December, 2020. © gassd *[| Al
The Honorabl# John 6. Canavan
JUDGE OF DISTRICT COURTIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE count L, E
STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE DISTRICT cour
James and Carolyn Branscum, DEC 03 200n
POTTAWATONR
Plaintiff, VALERIE Hi, Ok
an va
Case No: CJ-2020-227
Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.;
Farmers Insurance Exchange;
Farmers Group, Inc., and Steve Burris,
d/b/a Steve Burris Insurance Agency,
Defendants,
ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO QUASH THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KEITH DALY
NOW on this 3" day of December, 2020, the above-styled and numbered cause came
before the undersigned Judge concerning Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Keith
Daly. All parties are present and appear by and through their counsel. Upon review of the written
briefs filed by the parties, and the Court having heard oral arguments and being otherwise fully
advised in the premises finds Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Keith Daly is
OVERRULED in its entirety. Defendants are hereby ordered to present Keith Daly for deposition
via Zoom within bo days.
THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that Defendants’
Motion to Quash the Deposition of Keith Daly is hereby OVERRULED. Defendants are ordered
to present Keith Daly for deposition via Zoom within (o_ days. ef k, Ty
IT IS SO ORDERED. oe to G ws K, And 4
Md dy ws
Dated this _“3_ day of December, 2020.The Hoforable John G. Canavan
JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURTIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE counkyl LE D
STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Randy and Sheila Perkins, DEC 03 2020
ROTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, OX
Plaintiffs, WAGE ft DELILEN. Count eae
ve
Case No: CJ-2020-228
Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.;
Farmers Insurance Exchange;
Farmers Group, Inc., and Steve Burris,
d/b/a Steve Burris Insurance Agency,
Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING DE¥ENDANTS’ MOTION
HH THE, 1D DEPOSITION 9)
NOW on this 3" day of December, 2020, the above-styled and numbered cause came
before the undersigned Judge conceming Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Jeff
Dailey. All parties are present and appear by and through their counsel. Upon review of the written
briefs filed by the parties, and the Court having heard oral arguments and being otherwise fully
advised in the premises finds Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Jeff Dailey is
OVERRULED in its enticety. Defendants are hereby ordered to present Jeff Dailey for deposition
via Zoom within (Oueys.
THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that Defendants’
Motion to Quash the Deposition of Jeff Dailey is hereby OVERRULED. Defendants are ordered
to present Jeff Dailey for deposition via Zoom withing days. S AdeeT &
ITISSO ORDERED. ~ Meth wyR EG
Dated this 3-day of December, 2020. Ew sen -2
The Honorabfe JohnjG. Canavan
JUDGE OF AHE DISTRICT COURTFILED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUMYYHE DISTRICT Coury
STATE OF OKLAHOMA DEC 03 20m
Randy and Sheila Perkins, POTTAWAT:
y VALERIE WL DEtTeRN cone oS,
BY.
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: CJ-2020-228
Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.;
Farmers Insurance Exchange;
Farmers Group, Inc., and Steve Burris,
d/b/a Steve Burris Insurance Agency,
Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO QUASH THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ROBERT HOWARD
NOW on this 3% day of December, 2020, the above-styled and numbered cause came
before the undersigned Judge concerning Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Robert
Howard. All parties are present and appear by and through their counsel. Upon review of the
written briefs filed by the parties, and the Court having heard oral arguments and being otherwise
fully advised in the premises finds Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Robert Howard
is OVERRULED in its entirety. Defendants are hereby ordered to present Robert Howard for
deposition via Zoom within 60 days,
THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that Defendants’
Motion to Quash the Deposition of Robert Howard is hereby OVERRULED. Defendants are
ordered to present Robert Howard for deposition via Zoom within bo days. k
IT IS SO ORDERED. te g le a's
Dated this 5 day of December, 2020.QL a
The Honorable John G. Canavan
JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURTIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTF [ L E D
STATE OF OKLAHOMA. IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Randy and Sheila Perkins, DEC 03 2020
POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, OK
Plaintiffs, VALERE M, UELTZEA, COURT CLERK
by
v.
Case No: CJ-2020-228
Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.;
Farmers Insurance Exchange;
Farmers Group, Inc., and Steve Burris,
d/b/a Steve Burris Insurance Agency,
Defendants.
ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO QUAS VIDEOTAPED TION.
NOW on this 3 day of December, 2020, the above-styled and numbered cause came
before the undersigned Judge concerning Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Tim
Felks. All parties are present and appear by and through their counsel. Upon review of the written
briefs filed by the parties, and the Court having heard oral arguments and being otherwise fully
advised in the premises finds Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Tim Felks is
OVERRULED in its entirety. Defendants are hereby ordered to present Tim Felks for deposition
via Zoom within GO days,
THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES thet Defendants’
Motion to Quash the Deposition of Tim Felks is hereby OVERRULED. Defendants are ordered
to present Tim Felks for deposition via Zoom withing @ days. Suhyut- G
rl, 2 f,
IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 (Mh ee yee
Dated this » day of December, 2020. l \“dA
The Honorfble Jdhn G. Canavan
JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURTFILED
IN THE DISTRICT COURT
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA DEC 03 2020
POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, OK
Randy and Sheila Perkins, wpe MW. UELIZEN, COURT CLERK
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No: CJ-2020-228
Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.;
Farmers Insurance Exchange;
Farmers Group, Inc,, and Steve Burris,
d/b/a Steve Burris Insurance Agency,
Defendants,
ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
TO QUASH THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KEITH DALY
NOW on this 3 day of December, 2020, the above-styled and numbered cause came
before the undersigned Judge concerning Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Keith
Daly. All parties are present and appeat by and through their counsel. Upon review of the written
briefs filed by the parties, and the Court having beard oral arguments and being otherwise fully
advised in the premises finds Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Keith Daly is
OVERRULED in its entirety. Defendants are hereby ordered to present Keith Daly for deposition
via Zoom within Ga days,
THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that Defendants’
Motion to Quash the Deposition of Keith Daly is hereby OVERRULED. Defendants are ordered
to present Keith Daly for deposition via Zoom withinfg(?_ days. 3 Bde t Pr Or dude “( c )
t
erin ton, @
XT IS SO ORDERED. fuer halt du
Dated this a day of December, 2020. 0 qin,(V) ,
The Honorabld John G. Canavan
JUDGE OF TRE DISTRICT COURTwrtILED
TH
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY" PSTHCT coup
STATE OF OKLAHOMA OCT 26 209
Porraws: :
vi Toes
JAMES AND CAROLYN BRANSCUM, ee URLIZEY, Coun Ck
PLAINTIFFS, oerury
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CJ-2020-227
Y
Judge John G. Canavan, Jr.
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; FARMERS
INSURANCE EXCHANGE; FARMERS GRovr, INC.
AND STEVE BURRIS D/B/A STEVE BURRIS
INSURANCE AGENCY,
COMES NOW Defendants Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., Farmers Insurance
Exchange, and Farmers Groups, Inc., and respectfully request that this Court quash Plaintiffs’
Notice for the deposition of Jeffrey Dailey. Plaintiffs’ Notice should be quashed because it is
overbroad and without limitation as to the topics at issue, and does not provide sufficient time to
prepare and arrange for the deposition of this high-level executive, particularly when counsel for
Plaintiffs have also noticed Mr. Dailey’s deposition in the Perkins case for the day following his
deposition in this case. Moreover, Mr. Dailey has already been deposed by Plaintiffs’ counsel
multiple times in cases advancing similer institutional allegations currently pending in Oklahoma
and Payne Counties, and so there is no need for further testimony from Mr. Dailey. Further,
Plaintiffs have failed to show the need for the deposition of an officer ‘prior to taking the
depositions of the Plaintiffs, which was requested by letter in an attempt to cooperate with
Plaintiffs in discovery, or before taking the depositions of other witnesses who were involved in
the adjusting and handling of Plaintiffs’ claim.
EXHIBIT
12court-ordered depositions in Howard, evidences the gamesmanship counsel for Plaintiffs are
eroploying. This is particularly evident in Plaintiffs’ refusal to provide dates for an inspection of
the subject property or for Plaintiffs’ depositions, despite a request from three weeks before the
Notices were issued. Such gamesmanship and Plaintiffs’ abuse of the discovery process should
not be tolerated.
L STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO PROTECTIVE ORDERS REGARDING CORPORATE EXECUTIVE
DEPOSITIONS
The Oklahoma Discovery Code limits the ability of parties to depose officers, directors,
and managing agents of corporate entities. Specifically:
Tf an officer, director or managing agent of a corporation ... is served with notice
of a deposition or subpoena regarding a matter about which he or she has no
knowledge, he or she may submit at a reasonable time prior to the date of the
deposition an affidavit to the noticing party so stating and identifying a person
within the corporation ... who has knowledge of the subject matter involved in the
pending action. Notwithstanding such affidavit, the noticing party may proceed
with the deposition, subject to the noticed witness's right to seek a protective order.
12 O.S. § 3226(B)(2)(d).
Under Oklahoma law, @ top-level corporate employee is entitled to a protective order upon.
a showing of good cause to “‘protect a party or person from annoyance, harassment,
embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden or expense.” Crest Infiniti, IT, LP v. Swinton,
2007 OK 77, { 16, 174 P.3d 996, 1004 (quoting 12 0,8. § 3226(C)(1)). Pursuant to § 3226(C)(1),
this Court may enter “any order which justice requires,” including the following:
a, that the discovery not be had,
b. that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions,
including a designation of the time, place or the allocation of expenses,
c. that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than
that selected by the party seeking discovery,
d. that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure
or discovery be limited to certain matters...
5discovery responses in this case to find out who was actually involved in the investigation,
evaluation, adjustment, and supervision of Plaintiffs’ insurance claim, Despite not waiting forsuch
discovery responses, Plaintiffs have objected to being presented for their own depositions until
after Defendants have “fully respond{ed] to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests,” and have further
objected to Defendants’ request for a property inspection. Exh. 5. Since Plaintiffs are taking the
position that they cannot be deposed until their discovery requests have been answered, the same
tule should work both ways, and Defendants’ employees should not be deposed until Plaintiffs
have fully responded to Defendants’ discovery requests.
Mr. Dailey was not involved in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim, and so does not have
personal knowledge of such claim, including how such claim was investigated, evaluated,
adjusted, or supervised. See ] 6, supra. As such, he does not have personal knowledge of the
Specific facts or circumstances upon which the individual adjusters or supervisors relied to
determine whether an earthquake caused a loss to Plaintiffs’ property. Information about Plaintifis’
insurance cleim, including how such claim was investigated, evaluated, and paid, could easily be
sought from the adjustors and supervisors who actually handled Plaintiffs’ claim. However,
Plaintiffs have not even waited to discover the identify of any of those individuals.
Based on the fact that Mr. Dailey lacks knowledge of facts relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim,
Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant a protective order prohibiting Plaintiffs from
taking the noticed deposition, Alternatively, Defendants request that this Court grant a protective
order delaying the noticed deposition until Plaintiffs have deposed the adjustors and supervisors
who actually handled their claim, and if Plaintiffs can show that Mr. Dailey’s deposition is still
necessary, as is within this Court’s sound discretion under 12 0.5. § 3226(C)(1). Salter v. Upjohn
Co., 593 F.2d 649, 651 (Sth Cir. 1979) (upholding the trial judge’s order vacating the plaintiff'sIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY OCT yy” COupy
STATE OF OKLAHOMA vase, 2
oy Ue Colm,
RANDY AND SHEILA PERKINS, Oty’ Ok
en
PLAINTIFFS,
Case No. CJ-2020-228
YS.
Judge John G. Canavan, Jr.
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.;
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE;
FARMERS Group, INC. AND STEVE BuRRIS,
D/3/A STEVE BURRIS INSURANCE AGENCY,
DEFENDANTS.
DEFENDANTS’ ON TO OU. DEPOSITION OF 'Y DAILEY
COMES NOW Defendants Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., Farmers Insurance
Exchange, and Farmers Groups, Inc., and respectfully request that this Court quash Plaintiffs’
Notice for the deposition of Jeffrey Dailey. Plaintiffs’ Notice should be quashed because it is
overbroad and without limitation as to the topics at issue, and does not provide sufficient time to
Prepare and arrange for the deposition of this high-level executive, particularly when counsel for
Plaintiffs have also noticed Mr, Dailey’s deposition in the Branscum case for the day before his
deposition in this case, Moreover, Mr. Dailey has already been deposed by Plaintifis' counsel
multiple times in cases advancing similar institutional allegations currently pending in Oklahoma
and Payne Counties, and so there is no need for further testimony from Mr. Dailey. Further,
Plaintiffs have failed to show the need for the deposition of an officer prior to taking the
depositions of the Plaintiffs, which was requested by letter in an attempt to cooperate with
Plaintiffs in discovery, or before taking the depositions of other witnesses who were involved in
the adjusting and handling of Plaintiffs’ claim.taking of multiple court-ordered depositions in Howard, evidences the gamesmanship counsel for
Plaintiffs are employing. This is particularly evident in Plaintiffs’ refusal to provide dates for an
inspection of the subject property or for Plaintiffs’ depositions, despite a request from three weeks
before the Notices were issued. Such gamesmanship and Plaintiffs’ abuse of the discovery process
should not be tolerated.
L STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO PROTECTIVE ORDERS REGARDING CORPORATE EXECUTIVE
DEPOSITIONS
The Oklahoma Discovery Code limits the ability of parties to depose officers, directors,
and managing agents of corporate entities. Specifically:
If an officer, director or managing agent of a corporation ... is served with notice
of a deposition or subpoena regarding a matter about which he or she has no
knowledge, he or she may submit at a reasonable time prior to the date of the
deposition an affidavit to the noticing party so stating and identifying a person
within the corporation ... who has knowledge of the subject matter involved in the
pending action. Notwithstanding such affidavit, the noticing party may proceed
with the deposition, subject to the noticed witness's right to seek a protective order.
12 O.S. § 3226(B)(2)(4).
Under Oklahoma law, a top-level corporate employee is entitled to a protective order upon
a showing of good cause to “‘protect a party or person from annoyance, harassment,
embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden or expense.” Crest Infiniti, Il, LP v. Swinton,
2007 OK 77, $16, 174 P.3d 996, 1004 (quoting 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(1)). Pursuant to § 3226(C)(1),
this Court may enter “any order which justice requires,” including the following:
a. that the discovery not be had,
b. that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions,
including a designation of the time, place or the allocation of expenses,
c. that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than
that selected by the party seeking discovery,
d. that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure
or discovery be limited to certain matters...
- = 5SIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAYNE COUNTY
STATE OF OKLAHOMA
BRENDA GOOD,
Plaintiff,
vs. CASE NO. CJ-2017-128
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY,
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
and KHRIS FOWLER,
Sree
Defendants.
kee RO
TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING
HAD ON THE
1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020
BEFORE THE
HONORABLE PHILLIP CORLEY
DISTRICT JUDGE
eek oe ke Re
Reported By: MELISSIA A. PRAWL
Payne County Court Reporter
EXHIGIT phoma 74074
DISTRICT COURT OF goo ON DH BF WYN
m
RGR ES
15
Isl
give them the right to unilaterally decide what documents
that will not be subject to any order of this Court any
longer, which is what they've submitted.
THE COURT: Thank you. As I indicated earlier
this morning, I do not have authority to determine what
another Court or judge does with their particular case.
What I am going to do is, if the parties, particularly the
plaintiffs, want to use discovery that has occurred in
this case in another jurisdiction, they may do so, subject
to it being under seal. If the other Court decides they
don't want to follow that rule, then you need to withdraw
that or you will be subject to sanctions as it relates to
violation of the protective order.
I'm going to allow a new order, different than what
you've proposed, but I will allow it, but it's going to be
subject to being under seal so it is not disseminated to
the public.
MR. MARR: Understood.
THE COURT: And another Court doesn't follow
that it needs to be removed.
MR. MARR: Understood, Judge.
THE COURT: Mr. Richards.
MR. RICHARDS: Your Honor, will that be allowed
by both parties? May we also use it to file in other
courts?
DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA - OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTIN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNEY> ay
STATE OF OKLAHOMA r eS
ig
Ailcora Lucas, a” acevo Gout Oat
Plaintiff, rE A,
vs.
Case No,CJ-2017-1262
Foremost Insurance Company, et al,
Defendants.
ORDER
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion to Compe! Farmers Insurance Exchange and
Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange's Response. The Court has also reviewed the
dockets for Traylor v. Farmers (CJ-2017-366, Oklahoma County) and Good v. Farmers
(CJ-2017-128, Payne County). The Court notes that both of those cases involve
substantially the same attorneys and issues as this case. Both cases also have extensive
and ongoing discovery disputes which have been informative to this Court. Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel is granted subject to an agreed protective order to be submitted by
Counsel. Counsel to meet and confer regarding the protective order, In the event that
Counsel cannot agree, the matter will be set for a discovery conference. As a result of this
order the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Deposition filed 3/7/2019 only insofar
as to allow Plaintiff to obtain and teview discovery at which point the deposition should
be rescheduled.
Dated: varcn|Bboi9 Jue
Daman H. Cantrell
District Court Judge
Certificate of Mailing
Thereby certify that I have on March [tao19, ssied a true and comrect copy of the
above decision to the following persons, and a true and correct copy was filed in the
above case:
Reggie Whitten
512 N. Broadway, Suite 300
Oklahoma City, OK 73102
EXHIBITPhil Richards
525 S. Main Street, 12" Floor
Tulse, OK 4103
Jeff Marr
4301 S.W. Third Street, Suite 110
Oklahoma City, OK 73108
George Gibbs
601 S, Boulder, Suite 500
Tulsa, OK 74119‘The information on this page Is NOT an official record. Do not rely on the correctness oF completeness of this information.
Verify all information with the official record keeper. The information contained in this report is provided in compliance with tl
51 0.S. 24A.1. Use of this information is governed by this act, as well as other applicable sta’
Oklahoma Open Records Act,
and federal laws.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA
BARBARA. DEACON AND TANYA DEACON, No. Gu-2018-1984
v ‘ (Civil relief more than $10,000: BREACH OF
‘ AGREEMENT - CONTRACT)
FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Filed: 04/2/2018
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
AND JOSHUA AUTREY D/B/A JOSHUA
AUTREY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ot
Defendant. Judge: Timmons, Aletia Haynes
PARTIES
Autrey, Joshua, Defendant
Deacon, Barbara, Plaintiff
Deacon, Tanya, Plaintiff
Farmers Insurance Company, Defendant
Farmers Insurance Exchange, Detendant
ATTORNEYS
Attorney Represented Parties
COOPER, MARY QUINN (Bar #11966) Farmers insurance Company,
TWO WEST 2ND ST STE 1100 Farmers Insurance Exchange,
TULSA, OK 74103 Autrey, Joshua
LAUDERDALE, MICHAEL F (Bar #14265) Autrey, Joshua
MCAFEE & TAFT A PROFESSIONAL CORP 10TH FLOOR Farmers Insurance Company,
TWO LEADERSHIP SQUARE Farmers Insurance Exchange,
211 N, ROBINSON AVENUE
OKG, OK 73102
Marr, Jeff D. (Bar #16080) Deacon, Barbara
4301 SOUTHWEST THIAD STREET SUITE 110 Deacon, Tanya
OKC, OK 73108Dater .. -Code
04-08-2019 RESP
04-08-2019 RESP
04-11-2019 CRF
04-11-2019 CTFREE
04-11-2019 ACCOUNT
04-22-2019 APLI
04-24-2019 CTFREE
04-30-2019 DWOP
04-30-2019 DWOP
04-30-2019 DWOP
04-30-2019 OG
06-06-2019 CTFREE
06-07-2019 O
06-13-2019 CAF
Description
DEFENDANT FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE RESPONSE
TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND BRIEF IN
SUPPORT (PART 1 OF 2)
Document Available {#1040993450) 2) TIFF PDF
DEFENDANT FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE RESPONSE
TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND BRIEF IN
SUPPORT (PART 2 OF 2)
Document Available (#1 043159458) ETIFF . PDF
COURT REPORTER FEE-TRIAL ON MERITS
ANDREWS: PARTIES APPEAR THROUGH COUNSEL:
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - AGREED
ORDER TO BE PRESENTED: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH
DEPOSITION NOTICE - SUSTAINED ON A LIMITED BASIS,
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - AGREED ORDER TO BE
PRESENTED
RECEIPT # 2019-4579293 ON 04/11/2019. COURT REPORTER
FEE
PAYOR: RICHARDS AND CONNOR TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: $
20.00.
LINE ITEMS:
CJ-2018-1981: $20.00 ON ACO1 CLERK FEES.
COURT REPORTER NOT USED THIS DATE
UNOPPOSED A/'PLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE RESPONSE TO FARMERS' MOTION TO DISMISS AS TO
BARBARA DEACON
Document Available (#1043515888) STIFF =. PDF
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION - SIGNED/OGDEN FOR
ANDREWS
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO PLAINTIFF
BARBARA DEACON ONLY
Document Aviitable (#1043511377) E\TIFF = PDF
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO PLAINTIFF
BARBARA DEACON ONLY
Document Available (#1043511377) STIFF PDE
DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Document Avai:nie (#1043511377) STIFF | PDF
ORDER GAM! TING EXTENSION
Document Availahie (41043662926) ]TIFF POF
PROTECTIVE ORDER - SIGNED
PROTECTIVE OnDER
Document Avail ie (1043862309) TIFF PDF
COURT REM 1 ER FEE-TRIAL ON MERITS
Count Party Amou
$20
$2c
Preview
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COU! STATE OF OKLAHOMA JAMES and CAROLYN BRANSCUM, Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE; FARMERS GROUP, INC. and STEVE BURRIS d/b/a STEVE BURRIS INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendants. OD CR UP 60? UO? OR OU GOD Wn CED LD CD Case No. CJ-2020-227 Judge John G. Canavan, Jr. RANDY and SHEILA PERKINS, Plaintiffs, vy. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE; FARMERS GROUP, INC. and STEVE BURRIS d/b/a STEVE BURRIS INSURANCE AGENCY, Defendants. OD 101 RU CO? OR OO DD COD a to Case Ng. CJ-2020- Judge John G. Canavan, Jr. PLAINTIFFS’ COMBINED RESPONSE TO FARMERS’ CROSS MOTION TO DETERMINE DEPOSITION DATES Plaintiffs James and Carolyn Branscum and Randy and Shelia Perkins (collectively “Plaintiffs”) offer their response to Farmers’ Cross-Motion to Determine Dates for Depositions (“Motion”). As has become the unfortunate standard, Farmers’ Motion operates primarily as an attack on Plaintiffs’ counsel. Farmers’ Motion contends Plaintiffs have not sat for depositionbecause (1) “they would prefer not to provide any discovery until they’ve driven up attorneys’ fees well beyond any recoverable measure of damage in this case” (Mtn. at 1); (2) Plaintiffs contend they “are above the law” (Mtn. at 1); (3) it is “at odds with Plaintiffs’ coercive litigation strategy, which is designed to harass rather than seek the truth” (Mtn. at 6); (4) Plaintiffs seek “to use the judicial process to sanction their scorched earth litigation strategy” (Mtn. at 6); and (5) “it doesn’t fit with [Plaintiffs’ counsel’s] strategy to escalate costs in 52 cases in hopes of eliciting a disproportionately high settlement offer” (Mtn. at 8). Farmers’ Motion contains more insults than it does citations to legal authority. To support its position that Plaintiffs must be deposed before any other deposition can proceed (including those already ordered by the Court), Farmers argues Plaintiffs must be deposed before discovery can otherwise proceed because “‘it just makes sense that they should go first” and “this is the usual way to proceed” (Mtn. at 9). While casting barbs for what it classifies as Plaintiffs’ delay, Farmers makes scant mention of the fact it is still refusing to present its executives for deposition, despite the fact the Court ordered those depositions over 60 days ago, and Farmers continues to withhold Plaintiffs’ full claims and underwriting information concerning Plaintiffs. Fortunately, despite Farmers’ impudent approach and opinions as to the “usual way” of proceeding, the Court has since granted (in part) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider.’ In so doing, the Court struck Farmers’ desired requirement that no depositions may occur unless and until Farmers has deposed Plaintiffs. To the extent Farmers’ original Motion sought to deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider Entry of Scheduling Order, it is now moot. As such, all that remains before the Special Master is Farmers’ Cross-Motion to Determine Dates for Depositions. Plaintiffs ' As explained in Plaintiffs’ Response to Farmers’ “Advice to the Special Master”, a Journal Entry on this Order is forthcoming. 2respectfully request the Special Master order all depositions that the Court has already-compelled to take place within 15 days of this Order. 1 ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES A. There is No Reason to Further Delay the Court-Ordered Depositions of Farmers’ Executives. Over two months ago, on December 3, 2020, the Court overruled Farmers’ Motions to Quash Farmers’ executives Jeff Dailey, Keith Daly, Tim Felks, and Rob Howard and ordered the depositions to take place within 60 days, subject to the Special Master’s ability to amend that date. See Ex. 1, Orders Overruling Farmers’ Motions to Quash. Farmers never moved the Special Master to amend those dates and the 60 days have now come and gone due to Farmers’ efforts to delay these court-ordered depositions. In opposing those depositions, Farmers made the same general arguments it has made here. See Ex. 2, Excerpts from Def.’s Motion to Quash the Deposition of Jeff Dailey at 5, 7 (arguing Mr. Dailey should not be deposed when Plaintiffs have not been deposed yet). The Court disagreed and ordered the depositions of Farmers’ executive, nonetheless. Moreover, the Court has since struck the originally-entered Scheduling Order. Specifically, the Court partially granted Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider, preserving only the original pre-trial and trial dates. Farmers is now attempting a third swing at this issue, hoping the Special Master will impose deadlines not previously required by the Court and that it seeks as a means of further delaying the depositions of its executives. Indeed, Farmers has sought this same telief in two separate motions, both here and in its Motion for Status Conference Before the Special Master, which is largely duplicative of Farmers’ cross-motion. Farmers has presented no binding authority supporting its self-serving preference that Plaintiffs must be deposed before Farmers willpresent a single witness.? Nor has Farmers presented any justification as to why its executives cannot be prepared and deposed in the near future. These depositions are Court-ordered and have been for over 60 days. It is time they proceed. B. Plaintiffs Will Sit for Deposition Once Farmers Produces Their Claims Information and After Farmers’ Executives Are Deposed. While Farmers portrays the Plaintiffs as “so badly” seeking to avoid deposition, Plaintiffs have repeatedly made their position clear to Farmers. Mtn. at 10. Specifically, on December 8, 2020, counsel for the parties (Mr. Marr and Mr. Leach) had a lengthy conference to try and reach agreements to expedite the production of all written discovery and seat all witnesses for depositions. See Ex. 3, Dec. 4, 2020, Email. During this exchange, counsel for Plaintiffs made clear that he would be happy to present Plaintiffs for deposition affer Farmers provides Plaintiffs with their full claims, underwriting materials and claims specific information. Unfortunately, Farmers rejected this proposal. It would be completely prejudicial for Plaintiffs to be required to sit for a deposition without having the benefit of the documents pertaining to the claim at issue with which Farmers will undoubtedly use to examine Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are not trying to hide the ball; to the contrary, Plaintiffs have requested this information in advance of their depositions to ensure their deposition is not riddled with unnecessary surprise or speculation as to the specifics of Plaintiffs’ experience with Farmers. While Farmers finds this position to be apparently ? Farmers cites to a 1993 Advisory Committee note to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to supposedly support its argument. That note deals specifically with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(2) regarding expert disclosures in anticipation of trial. Without any support, Farmers conclusively claims that the “principle” of this note “extend[s] to the depositions of Plaintiffs.” Mtn at 9. Ironically, an earlier Committee note upon the addition of subdivision (d) to Rule 26 makes clear one of the principal effects of the Rule is to “eliminate any fixed priority in the sequence of discovery” and makes specific reference to depositions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, Advisory Committee Notes, 1970 Amendment, subdiv. (d). Oklahoma’s Rule 3226(d) mirrors its federal counterpoint. 4frustrating and outright intolerable, Plaintiffs have been consistent since the outset of this litigation. At no point has Farmers provided that supplementation. When it does, then Plaintiffs, true to their word, will indeed be made available for deposition within two weeks after the receipt of their full claims information, or at some date thereafter that is agreeable to the parties. This is not a situation where the outstanding documents have not been requested or even a situation where the existence of the information sought is unknown to opposing counsel or their client. Rather, Farmers is intentionally withholding production of the outstanding documents (including the complete claim file) that was requested by Plaintiffs months ago. Significantly, Farmers did not seek a protective order from this Court in response to Plaintiffs’ discovery, but rather chose to abdicate its obligations under the discovery code on nothing more than its unilateral belief that everything is “confidential.” Notwithstanding the impropriety of Farmers’ actions, Plaintiffs should not be compelled to make their case on whatever scraps of information they happen to have. What is more, nothing allows Farmers to withhold production of critical discovery from Plaintiffs, and then use the very same information to its own advantage to prepare for the deposition, while denying the same opportunity to the opponent. For example, in Roberts v. Americable Int'l, Inc., 883 F.Supp. 499, 501 (E.D.Cal. 1995) the plaintiff secretly recorded a number of conversations with co-workers in preparation for an employment discrimination and wrongful termination suit against her employer. No formal request for the tapes was made in discovery, but rather the existence of the tapes were revealed at a deposition. /d. The plaintiff, along with averring tangential procedural issues, argued that she should not be required to produce the tapes prior to deposing the recorded speakers, simply because the tapes would only be used to impeach the witnesses.The court found that the spirit and purpose of the discovery rules would be violated by allowing the plaintiff to ambush potential deponents with tapes at their depositions. /d. at 505. The court also noted that it would be inherently unfair to subject the employees to a deposition, where “the partial purpose of which is simply to create inconsistencies or otherwise set up impeachment” without “having had a chance to review the tapes ~ the same opportunity that the plaintiff had prior to her deposition.” /d. Further, the court quoting rule 26(c), which allows the court to enter an order protecting parties from “annoyance” or “oppression,” found the sequence of discovery should proceed in a manner to “promote fair and just litigation practices,” and as such “taking the defendant’s deposition prior to his having an opportunity to review all tapes is annoying or harassing at the very least.” /d. (emphasis added). The same is true here. Plaintiffs seek to give their depositions consistent with the Oklahoma Discovery Code, which serves to “make trial less of a game of blind man’s bluff and more a fair contest with the basic issues and facts disclosed to the fullest practicable extent.” State ex rel. Protective Health Servs. v. Billings Fairchild Ctr., Inc., 2007 OK CIV APP 24, J 17, 158 P.3d 484, 489. Indeed, nothing allows Farmers to withhold production of critical discovery from Plaintiffs, and then use the very same information to its own advantage to prepare for the depositions, while denying the same opportunity to Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ claim and underwriting file contains a diary of conversations had between the insurer/agent and insured. Additionally, it warehouses the information considered by the insurer when the policy issued and in the resolution of the claim. As identified by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, The nature of the business of an insurance company is to investigate an injury and potential claim and after a review of factual data underlying the claim, to determine whether or not to pay .. . Rule 26(b)(3) was not designed to insulate insurance companies ftom discovery merely because they always deal with potential claims as this would relieve them of a substantial portion of the obligations of discovery 6imposed on parties generally that are designed to aid the fact finding process and discourage gamesmanship which would reward parties for hiding or obscuring potentially significant facts. Hall v. Goodwin, 1989 OK 88, { 11, 775 P.2d 291 (internal citations omitted). Depriving Plaintiffs of access to the same conversations, details about their house and procurement of the earthquake policy—all of which Farmers undoubtedly intends to depose them is inherently prejudicial and is at the very least creates for Plaintiffs an undue annoyance, oppression and/or burden. See 12 0.S. §3226(C\(1). Indeed, even a witness honestly trying to recall events truthfully would be rattled by demands to attest to the contents of a document they have never seen before, much less swear to its accuracy. What is more, a witness is less likely to refute inaccuracies or even challenge Farmers’ version of reality if they are not provided an opportunity to review the documents in advance of their deposition. This is especially true given the fact that there are many documents that have been obtained in Traylor v. Foremost, et al, Case. No. 2017-366 (Oklahoma County), and Good v. Farmers, et al, Case No. 2017-128 (Payne County)? that bare directly on Plaintiff's claims that Farmers has refused to produce in this case. Compelling Plaintiff to testify prior to Farmers" production of the outstanding documents is inherently prejudicial and is at the very least annoying, harassing, oppressive or burdensome. 12 O.S, §3226(C)(1). Plaintiffs’ counsel have fought this same fight with Farmers twice before and proved successful on both occasions. In point, the Honorable Daman Cantrell in Lucas v. Farmers, et al., 3 Judge Corley in the Good case has allowed use discovery obtained in Good in other litigation or Jurisdictions so long as the documents and information are kept under seal and not disseminated to the public. See Ex. 4, Oct. 1, 2020, Hrg. Tr. (Good), 151:7-17. However, that allowance is not the equivalent of Farmers having produced all discoverable documents in this matter. Specifically, use of the Good discovery in this case is restricted and requires any and all Good documents be sealed without allowance for discretion by this Court. /d. at 10-13. 7Case. No. CJ-17-1262 (Tulsa County), and the Honorable Don Andrews in Deacon y. Farmers, et al., Case No. CJ-2018-1981 decided this precise issue. Like here, Farmers pressed for the deposition of the plaintiff before it had produced the outstanding discovery owed to the plaintiff, asserting the current discovery dispute had no bearing on the plaintiff's ability to testify. However, each Court disagreed, and sustained each of the motions to quash advising the plaintiff would not be required to appear for deposition until the outstanding discovery withheld by Farmers had been produced. See Ex. 5, Lucas Order; and Deacon Minute Order. Plaintiffs here ask only to be afforded that same courtesy. Plaintiff is more than willing to proceed with their depositions — however the basic notions of fairness and integrity of the litigation itself require Farmers produce the outstanding discovery first. West v. Cajun's Wharf, Inc., 1988 OK 92, 770 P.2d 558, 563. The policy of the law is that all issues in a case must be identified in a seasonable manner. The purpose of this requirement is to avoid trial-by-ambush, in which a party is surprised and then not given a reasonable time to effectively defend itself. Corman v. H-30 Drilling, Inc., 2001 OK 92, J 13, 40 P.3d 1051, 1054, as corrected (Mar. 21, 2002). Allowing Farmers to quell production of the complete claim file, or any of the requested documents for that matter, until affer Plaintiffs have testified undeniably stand these well-established principles on its head. II. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED Considering the Court has granted Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider (in part), stricken the previous Scheduling Order with the exception of the pre-trial and trial dates, and granted Plaintiffs Motion to Quash, Plaintiffs request the Special Master Order all previously-ordered depositions to take place within 15 days of this order.Respectfully Submitted, Ci Jeff D. Marr, OBA No. 16080 Carole Dulisse, OBA No. 18047 MARR LAW FIRM 4301 Southwest Third Street, Suite 110 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 236-8000 Facsimile: (405) 236-8025 Jjeffdmarr@marrlawfirm.com cdulisse@marrlawfirm.com -and- Michael Burrage, OBA No. 1350 Reggie N. Whitten, OBA No. 9576 Revell Parrish, OBA No. 30205 WHITTEN BURRAGE 512. N. Broadway, Ste. 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 516-7800 Facsimile: (405) 516-7859 -and- Chad E. Thrig, OBA No. 19491 Nick Marr, OBA No. 34284 NIX PATTERSON, LLP 3600-B North Capital of TX Hwy. Austin, Texas 78746 Telephone: (512) 328-5300 Facsimile: (512) 328-5333 Email: cihrig@nixlaw.com nmarr@nixlaw.com Attorneys for PlaintiffsCERTIFICATE OF MAILING This is to certify a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document was emailed and mailed, United States Mail, Postage Prepaid, on this 8" day of February, 2021, to the following counsel of record: Phil Richards Kelsie M. Sullivan RICHARDS & CONNOR 12" Floor, Park Centre Building 525 S. Main Street Tulsa, OK 74103 Telephone: (918) 585-2394 Facsimile: (918) 585-1499 Email: prichards@richardsconnor.com ksullivan@richardsconnor.com -and- Clyde Muchmore CROWE & DUNLEVY 324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-7700 Facsimile: {405) 239-6651 Email: clyde.muchmore@crowedunlevy.com Joe Vorndran Stuart & Clover Law Firm 130 North Broadway, Suite 100 Shawnee, OK 74801 Telephone: (405) 275-0700 Facsimile: (405) 275-6805 Email: joe@stuartclover.com Michael F. Lauderdale, OBA #14265 Drew Neville, OBA #6641 McAree & Tarr, P.C. 10th Floor, Two Leadership Square 211 North Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102-7103 Telephone: (405) 235-9621 Facsimile: (405) 235-0439 Email: michael.lauderdale@mcafeetaft.com drew.neville@mcafeetaft.com -and- Mary Quinn Cooper OBA No. 11966 William S. Leach, OBA No. 14892 McAree & TAFT, P.C. Williams Center Tower II Two West Second Street, Suite 1100 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103 Telephone: (918) 587-0000 Facsimile: (918) 599-9317 Email: maryquinn.cooper@mcafeetaft.com bill. leach@mcafeetaft.com Attorneys for Defendants Bradley C. West, OBA No. 13476 The West Law Firm 124 W. Highland ~ P.O. Box 698 Shawnee, OK 74802-0698 Telephone: (405) 275-0040 Facsimile: (405) 275-0052 Email: brad@thewestlawfirm.com Attorney for Defendant, Steve Burris d/b/a Steve Burris Insurance Agency, Inc. 101 Ca JEFF D. MARR/CAROLE DULISSEINTHE DISTRICT CouRT oF PoTrawaTomiE counyvl L. E D STATE OF OKLAHOMA James and Carolyn Branscum, Plaintiffs, ¥. Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.; Farmers Insurance Exchange; Farmers Group, Inc., and Steve Burris, d/b/a Steve Burris Insurance Agency, Defendants. Case No: CJ-2020-227 IN THE DISTRICT COURT DEC 03 2020 BOTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, OK VALERUE N. GEMTZEN, COURT CLERK v____ eure 9 ER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION I D ROBERT HOW, NOW on this 3 day of December, 2020, the above-styled and numbered cause came before the undersigned Judge concerning Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Robert Howard. All parties are present and appear by and through their counsel. Upon review of the written briefs filed by the parties, and the Court having heard oral arguments and being otherwise fully advised in the premises finds Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Robert Howard is OVERRULED in its entirety. Defendants are hereby ordered to present Robert Howard for deposition via Zoom wind. days. THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Robert Howard is hereby OVERRULED, Defendants are ordered to present Robert Howard for deposition via Zoom with 00 days. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 3 day of December, 2020. EXHIBIT Po Ly feof. fi QavedAh) The Honorab Toh Canavan JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURTIN THE DISTRICT CourT OF poTTawaTomie CounTY I L E D STATE OF OKLAHOMA, IN THE DISTRICT COURT James and Carolyn Branscum, DEC 0.3 99°9 POTTAWATOMIE County, ox Plaintiffs, VaeaIE WN. DRLTZEN, cOuRT Q days. THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Tim Felks is hereby OVERRULED. Defendants are ordered to present Tim Felks for deposition via Zoom withinfg@ days. > wht” b Yofe a ge, (A IT IS SO ORDERED. Ww f ot ( « Dated this 2 day of December, 2020.(VA. The Honofdble Jqhn G. Canavan JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURTFILED IN THE DISTR IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNLY © CT COURT STATE OF OKLAHOMA DEC 0.3 2070 POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, James and Carolyo Branscum, VALERIE M, BELTZEH, COURT Clee Wt oeury Plaintiffs, ve Case No: CJ-2020-227 Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.; Farmers Insurance Exchange; Farmers Group, luc., and Steve Burris, d/b/a Steve Burris Jusurance Agency, Defendants. ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF JEFF DAILEY NOW on this 3" day of December, 2020, the above-styled and numbered cause came before the undersigned Judge concerning Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Jeff Dailey. All parties are present and appear by and through their counsel. Upon review of the written briefs filed by the parties, and the Court having beard oral arguments and being otherwise fully advised in the premises finds Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Jeff Dailey is OVERRULED in its entirety. Defendants are hereby ordered to present Jeff Dailey for deposition via Zoom within(@) days. THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Jeff Dailey is hereby OVERRULED. Defendants are ordered to present Jeff Dailey for deposition via Zoom withing? days. WK bh 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. (4 aM, 9 ot Dated this_ 2 day of December, 2020. © gassd *[| Al The Honorabl# John 6. Canavan JUDGE OF DISTRICT COURTIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE count L, E STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE DISTRICT cour James and Carolyn Branscum, DEC 03 200n POTTAWATONR Plaintiff, VALERIE Hi, Ok an va Case No: CJ-2020-227 Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.; Farmers Insurance Exchange; Farmers Group, Inc., and Steve Burris, d/b/a Steve Burris Insurance Agency, Defendants, ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KEITH DALY NOW on this 3" day of December, 2020, the above-styled and numbered cause came before the undersigned Judge concerning Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Keith Daly. All parties are present and appear by and through their counsel. Upon review of the written briefs filed by the parties, and the Court having heard oral arguments and being otherwise fully advised in the premises finds Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Keith Daly is OVERRULED in its entirety. Defendants are hereby ordered to present Keith Daly for deposition via Zoom within bo days. THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Keith Daly is hereby OVERRULED. Defendants are ordered to present Keith Daly for deposition via Zoom within (o_ days. ef k, Ty IT IS SO ORDERED. oe to G ws K, And 4 Md dy ws Dated this _“3_ day of December, 2020.The Hoforable John G. Canavan JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURTIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE counkyl LE D STATE OF OKLAHOMA IN THE DISTRICT COURT Randy and Sheila Perkins, DEC 03 2020 ROTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, OX Plaintiffs, WAGE ft DELILEN. Count eae ve Case No: CJ-2020-228 Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.; Farmers Insurance Exchange; Farmers Group, Inc., and Steve Burris, d/b/a Steve Burris Insurance Agency, Defendants. ORDER OVERRULING DE¥ENDANTS’ MOTION HH THE, 1D DEPOSITION 9) NOW on this 3" day of December, 2020, the above-styled and numbered cause came before the undersigned Judge conceming Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Jeff Dailey. All parties are present and appear by and through their counsel. Upon review of the written briefs filed by the parties, and the Court having heard oral arguments and being otherwise fully advised in the premises finds Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Jeff Dailey is OVERRULED in its enticety. Defendants are hereby ordered to present Jeff Dailey for deposition via Zoom within (Oueys. THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Jeff Dailey is hereby OVERRULED. Defendants are ordered to present Jeff Dailey for deposition via Zoom withing days. S AdeeT & ITISSO ORDERED. ~ Meth wyR EG Dated this 3-day of December, 2020. Ew sen -2 The Honorabfe JohnjG. Canavan JUDGE OF AHE DISTRICT COURTFILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUMYYHE DISTRICT Coury STATE OF OKLAHOMA DEC 03 20m Randy and Sheila Perkins, POTTAWAT: y VALERIE WL DEtTeRN cone oS, BY. Plaintiffs, v. Case No: CJ-2020-228 Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.; Farmers Insurance Exchange; Farmers Group, Inc., and Steve Burris, d/b/a Steve Burris Insurance Agency, Defendants. ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ROBERT HOWARD NOW on this 3% day of December, 2020, the above-styled and numbered cause came before the undersigned Judge concerning Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Robert Howard. All parties are present and appear by and through their counsel. Upon review of the written briefs filed by the parties, and the Court having heard oral arguments and being otherwise fully advised in the premises finds Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Robert Howard is OVERRULED in its entirety. Defendants are hereby ordered to present Robert Howard for deposition via Zoom within 60 days, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Robert Howard is hereby OVERRULED. Defendants are ordered to present Robert Howard for deposition via Zoom within bo days. k IT IS SO ORDERED. te g le a's Dated this 5 day of December, 2020.QL a The Honorable John G. Canavan JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURTIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTF [ L E D STATE OF OKLAHOMA. IN THE DISTRICT COURT Randy and Sheila Perkins, DEC 03 2020 POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, OK Plaintiffs, VALERE M, UELTZEA, COURT CLERK by v. Case No: CJ-2020-228 Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.; Farmers Insurance Exchange; Farmers Group, Inc., and Steve Burris, d/b/a Steve Burris Insurance Agency, Defendants. ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUAS VIDEOTAPED TION. NOW on this 3 day of December, 2020, the above-styled and numbered cause came before the undersigned Judge concerning Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Tim Felks. All parties are present and appear by and through their counsel. Upon review of the written briefs filed by the parties, and the Court having heard oral arguments and being otherwise fully advised in the premises finds Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Tim Felks is OVERRULED in its entirety. Defendants are hereby ordered to present Tim Felks for deposition via Zoom within GO days, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES thet Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Tim Felks is hereby OVERRULED. Defendants are ordered to present Tim Felks for deposition via Zoom withing @ days. Suhyut- G rl, 2 f, IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 (Mh ee yee Dated this » day of December, 2020. l \“dA The Honorfble Jdhn G. Canavan JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURTFILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA DEC 03 2020 POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY, OK Randy and Sheila Perkins, wpe MW. UELIZEN, COURT CLERK Plaintiffs, v. Case No: CJ-2020-228 Farmers Insurance Company, Inc.; Farmers Insurance Exchange; Farmers Group, Inc,, and Steve Burris, d/b/a Steve Burris Insurance Agency, Defendants, ORDER OVERRULING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO QUASH THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KEITH DALY NOW on this 3 day of December, 2020, the above-styled and numbered cause came before the undersigned Judge concerning Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Keith Daly. All parties are present and appeat by and through their counsel. Upon review of the written briefs filed by the parties, and the Court having beard oral arguments and being otherwise fully advised in the premises finds Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Keith Daly is OVERRULED in its entirety. Defendants are hereby ordered to present Keith Daly for deposition via Zoom within Ga days, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES that Defendants’ Motion to Quash the Deposition of Keith Daly is hereby OVERRULED. Defendants are ordered to present Keith Daly for deposition via Zoom withinfg(?_ days. 3 Bde t Pr Or dude “( c ) t erin ton, @ XT IS SO ORDERED. fuer halt du Dated this a day of December, 2020. 0 qin,(V) , The Honorabld John G. Canavan JUDGE OF TRE DISTRICT COURTwrtILED TH IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY" PSTHCT coup STATE OF OKLAHOMA OCT 26 209 Porraws: : vi Toes JAMES AND CAROLYN BRANSCUM, ee URLIZEY, Coun Ck PLAINTIFFS, oerury ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CJ-2020-227 Y Judge John G. Canavan, Jr. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE; FARMERS GRovr, INC. AND STEVE BURRIS D/B/A STEVE BURRIS INSURANCE AGENCY, COMES NOW Defendants Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, and Farmers Groups, Inc., and respectfully request that this Court quash Plaintiffs’ Notice for the deposition of Jeffrey Dailey. Plaintiffs’ Notice should be quashed because it is overbroad and without limitation as to the topics at issue, and does not provide sufficient time to prepare and arrange for the deposition of this high-level executive, particularly when counsel for Plaintiffs have also noticed Mr. Dailey’s deposition in the Perkins case for the day following his deposition in this case. Moreover, Mr. Dailey has already been deposed by Plaintiffs’ counsel multiple times in cases advancing similer institutional allegations currently pending in Oklahoma and Payne Counties, and so there is no need for further testimony from Mr. Dailey. Further, Plaintiffs have failed to show the need for the deposition of an officer ‘prior to taking the depositions of the Plaintiffs, which was requested by letter in an attempt to cooperate with Plaintiffs in discovery, or before taking the depositions of other witnesses who were involved in the adjusting and handling of Plaintiffs’ claim. EXHIBIT 12court-ordered depositions in Howard, evidences the gamesmanship counsel for Plaintiffs are eroploying. This is particularly evident in Plaintiffs’ refusal to provide dates for an inspection of the subject property or for Plaintiffs’ depositions, despite a request from three weeks before the Notices were issued. Such gamesmanship and Plaintiffs’ abuse of the discovery process should not be tolerated. L STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO PROTECTIVE ORDERS REGARDING CORPORATE EXECUTIVE DEPOSITIONS The Oklahoma Discovery Code limits the ability of parties to depose officers, directors, and managing agents of corporate entities. Specifically: Tf an officer, director or managing agent of a corporation ... is served with notice of a deposition or subpoena regarding a matter about which he or she has no knowledge, he or she may submit at a reasonable time prior to the date of the deposition an affidavit to the noticing party so stating and identifying a person within the corporation ... who has knowledge of the subject matter involved in the pending action. Notwithstanding such affidavit, the noticing party may proceed with the deposition, subject to the noticed witness's right to seek a protective order. 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(2)(d). Under Oklahoma law, @ top-level corporate employee is entitled to a protective order upon. a showing of good cause to “‘protect a party or person from annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden or expense.” Crest Infiniti, IT, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, { 16, 174 P.3d 996, 1004 (quoting 12 0,8. § 3226(C)(1)). Pursuant to § 3226(C)(1), this Court may enter “any order which justice requires,” including the following: a, that the discovery not be had, b. that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time, place or the allocation of expenses, c. that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery, d. that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters... 5discovery responses in this case to find out who was actually involved in the investigation, evaluation, adjustment, and supervision of Plaintiffs’ insurance claim, Despite not waiting forsuch discovery responses, Plaintiffs have objected to being presented for their own depositions until after Defendants have “fully respond{ed] to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests,” and have further objected to Defendants’ request for a property inspection. Exh. 5. Since Plaintiffs are taking the position that they cannot be deposed until their discovery requests have been answered, the same tule should work both ways, and Defendants’ employees should not be deposed until Plaintiffs have fully responded to Defendants’ discovery requests. Mr. Dailey was not involved in the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim, and so does not have personal knowledge of such claim, including how such claim was investigated, evaluated, adjusted, or supervised. See ] 6, supra. As such, he does not have personal knowledge of the Specific facts or circumstances upon which the individual adjusters or supervisors relied to determine whether an earthquake caused a loss to Plaintiffs’ property. Information about Plaintifis’ insurance cleim, including how such claim was investigated, evaluated, and paid, could easily be sought from the adjustors and supervisors who actually handled Plaintiffs’ claim. However, Plaintiffs have not even waited to discover the identify of any of those individuals. Based on the fact that Mr. Dailey lacks knowledge of facts relevant to Plaintiffs’ claim, Defendants respectfully request that this Court grant a protective order prohibiting Plaintiffs from taking the noticed deposition, Alternatively, Defendants request that this Court grant a protective order delaying the noticed deposition until Plaintiffs have deposed the adjustors and supervisors who actually handled their claim, and if Plaintiffs can show that Mr. Dailey’s deposition is still necessary, as is within this Court’s sound discretion under 12 0.5. § 3226(C)(1). Salter v. Upjohn Co., 593 F.2d 649, 651 (Sth Cir. 1979) (upholding the trial judge’s order vacating the plaintiff'sIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY OCT yy” COupy STATE OF OKLAHOMA vase, 2 oy Ue Colm, RANDY AND SHEILA PERKINS, Oty’ Ok en PLAINTIFFS, Case No. CJ-2020-228 YS. Judge John G. Canavan, Jr. FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, INC.; FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE; FARMERS Group, INC. AND STEVE BuRRIS, D/3/A STEVE BURRIS INSURANCE AGENCY, DEFENDANTS. DEFENDANTS’ ON TO OU. DEPOSITION OF 'Y DAILEY COMES NOW Defendants Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., Farmers Insurance Exchange, and Farmers Groups, Inc., and respectfully request that this Court quash Plaintiffs’ Notice for the deposition of Jeffrey Dailey. Plaintiffs’ Notice should be quashed because it is overbroad and without limitation as to the topics at issue, and does not provide sufficient time to Prepare and arrange for the deposition of this high-level executive, particularly when counsel for Plaintiffs have also noticed Mr, Dailey’s deposition in the Branscum case for the day before his deposition in this case, Moreover, Mr. Dailey has already been deposed by Plaintifis' counsel multiple times in cases advancing similar institutional allegations currently pending in Oklahoma and Payne Counties, and so there is no need for further testimony from Mr. Dailey. Further, Plaintiffs have failed to show the need for the deposition of an officer prior to taking the depositions of the Plaintiffs, which was requested by letter in an attempt to cooperate with Plaintiffs in discovery, or before taking the depositions of other witnesses who were involved in the adjusting and handling of Plaintiffs’ claim.taking of multiple court-ordered depositions in Howard, evidences the gamesmanship counsel for Plaintiffs are employing. This is particularly evident in Plaintiffs’ refusal to provide dates for an inspection of the subject property or for Plaintiffs’ depositions, despite a request from three weeks before the Notices were issued. Such gamesmanship and Plaintiffs’ abuse of the discovery process should not be tolerated. L STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO PROTECTIVE ORDERS REGARDING CORPORATE EXECUTIVE DEPOSITIONS The Oklahoma Discovery Code limits the ability of parties to depose officers, directors, and managing agents of corporate entities. Specifically: If an officer, director or managing agent of a corporation ... is served with notice of a deposition or subpoena regarding a matter about which he or she has no knowledge, he or she may submit at a reasonable time prior to the date of the deposition an affidavit to the noticing party so stating and identifying a person within the corporation ... who has knowledge of the subject matter involved in the pending action. Notwithstanding such affidavit, the noticing party may proceed with the deposition, subject to the noticed witness's right to seek a protective order. 12 O.S. § 3226(B)(2)(4). Under Oklahoma law, a top-level corporate employee is entitled to a protective order upon a showing of good cause to “‘protect a party or person from annoyance, harassment, embarrassment, oppression or undue delay, burden or expense.” Crest Infiniti, Il, LP v. Swinton, 2007 OK 77, $16, 174 P.3d 996, 1004 (quoting 12 O.S. § 3226(C)(1)). Pursuant to § 3226(C)(1), this Court may enter “any order which justice requires,” including the following: a. that the discovery not be had, b. that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time, place or the allocation of expenses, c. that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery, d. that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters... - = 5SIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF PAYNE COUNTY STATE OF OKLAHOMA BRENDA GOOD, Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO. CJ-2017-128 FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, and KHRIS FOWLER, Sree Defendants. kee RO TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING HAD ON THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020 BEFORE THE HONORABLE PHILLIP CORLEY DISTRICT JUDGE eek oe ke Re Reported By: MELISSIA A. PRAWL Payne County Court Reporter EXHIGIT phoma 74074 DISTRICT COURT OF goo ON DH BF WYN m RGR ES 15 Isl give them the right to unilaterally decide what documents that will not be subject to any order of this Court any longer, which is what they've submitted. THE COURT: Thank you. As I indicated earlier this morning, I do not have authority to determine what another Court or judge does with their particular case. What I am going to do is, if the parties, particularly the plaintiffs, want to use discovery that has occurred in this case in another jurisdiction, they may do so, subject to it being under seal. If the other Court decides they don't want to follow that rule, then you need to withdraw that or you will be subject to sanctions as it relates to violation of the protective order. I'm going to allow a new order, different than what you've proposed, but I will allow it, but it's going to be subject to being under seal so it is not disseminated to the public. MR. MARR: Understood. THE COURT: And another Court doesn't follow that it needs to be removed. MR. MARR: Understood, Judge. THE COURT: Mr. Richards. MR. RICHARDS: Your Honor, will that be allowed by both parties? May we also use it to file in other courts? DISTRICT COURT OF OKLAHOMA - OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTIN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR TULSA COUNEY> ay STATE OF OKLAHOMA r eS ig Ailcora Lucas, a” acevo Gout Oat Plaintiff, rE A, vs. Case No,CJ-2017-1262 Foremost Insurance Company, et al, Defendants. ORDER The Court has reviewed Plaintiff's Motion to Compe! Farmers Insurance Exchange and Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange's Response. The Court has also reviewed the dockets for Traylor v. Farmers (CJ-2017-366, Oklahoma County) and Good v. Farmers (CJ-2017-128, Payne County). The Court notes that both of those cases involve substantially the same attorneys and issues as this case. Both cases also have extensive and ongoing discovery disputes which have been informative to this Court. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is granted subject to an agreed protective order to be submitted by Counsel. Counsel to meet and confer regarding the protective order, In the event that Counsel cannot agree, the matter will be set for a discovery conference. As a result of this order the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion to Quash Deposition filed 3/7/2019 only insofar as to allow Plaintiff to obtain and teview discovery at which point the deposition should be rescheduled. Dated: varcn|Bboi9 Jue Daman H. Cantrell District Court Judge Certificate of Mailing Thereby certify that I have on March [tao19, ssied a true and comrect copy of the above decision to the following persons, and a true and correct copy was filed in the above case: Reggie Whitten 512 N. Broadway, Suite 300 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 EXHIBITPhil Richards 525 S. Main Street, 12" Floor Tulse, OK 4103 Jeff Marr 4301 S.W. Third Street, Suite 110 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 George Gibbs 601 S, Boulder, Suite 500 Tulsa, OK 74119‘The information on this page Is NOT an official record. Do not rely on the correctness oF completeness of this information. Verify all information with the official record keeper. The information contained in this report is provided in compliance with tl 51 0.S. 24A.1. Use of this information is governed by this act, as well as other applicable sta’ Oklahoma Open Records Act, and federal laws. IN THE DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR OKLAHOMA COUNTY, OKLAHOMA BARBARA. DEACON AND TANYA DEACON, No. Gu-2018-1984 v ‘ (Civil relief more than $10,000: BREACH OF ‘ AGREEMENT - CONTRACT) FARMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Filed: 04/2/2018 FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, AND JOSHUA AUTREY D/B/A JOSHUA AUTREY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., ot Defendant. Judge: Timmons, Aletia Haynes PARTIES Autrey, Joshua, Defendant Deacon, Barbara, Plaintiff Deacon, Tanya, Plaintiff Farmers Insurance Company, Defendant Farmers Insurance Exchange, Detendant ATTORNEYS Attorney Represented Parties COOPER, MARY QUINN (Bar #11966) Farmers insurance Company, TWO WEST 2ND ST STE 1100 Farmers Insurance Exchange, TULSA, OK 74103 Autrey, Joshua LAUDERDALE, MICHAEL F (Bar #14265) Autrey, Joshua MCAFEE & TAFT A PROFESSIONAL CORP 10TH FLOOR Farmers Insurance Company, TWO LEADERSHIP SQUARE Farmers Insurance Exchange, 211 N, ROBINSON AVENUE OKG, OK 73102 Marr, Jeff D. (Bar #16080) Deacon, Barbara 4301 SOUTHWEST THIAD STREET SUITE 110 Deacon, Tanya OKC, OK 73108Dater .. -Code 04-08-2019 RESP 04-08-2019 RESP 04-11-2019 CRF 04-11-2019 CTFREE 04-11-2019 ACCOUNT 04-22-2019 APLI 04-24-2019 CTFREE 04-30-2019 DWOP 04-30-2019 DWOP 04-30-2019 DWOP 04-30-2019 OG 06-06-2019 CTFREE 06-07-2019 O 06-13-2019 CAF Description DEFENDANT FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT (PART 1 OF 2) Document Available {#1040993450) 2) TIFF PDF DEFENDANT FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT (PART 2 OF 2) Document Available (#1 043159458) ETIFF . PDF COURT REPORTER FEE-TRIAL ON MERITS ANDREWS: PARTIES APPEAR THROUGH COUNSEL: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - AGREED ORDER TO BE PRESENTED: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO QUASH DEPOSITION NOTICE - SUSTAINED ON A LIMITED BASIS, MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - AGREED ORDER TO BE PRESENTED RECEIPT # 2019-4579293 ON 04/11/2019. COURT REPORTER FEE PAYOR: RICHARDS AND CONNOR TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: $ 20.00. LINE ITEMS: CJ-2018-1981: $20.00 ON ACO1 CLERK FEES. COURT REPORTER NOT USED THIS DATE UNOPPOSED A/'PLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO FARMERS' MOTION TO DISMISS AS TO BARBARA DEACON Document Available (#1043515888) STIFF =. PDF ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION - SIGNED/OGDEN FOR ANDREWS DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO PLAINTIFF BARBARA DEACON ONLY Document Aviitable (#1043511377) E\TIFF = PDF DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE AS TO PLAINTIFF BARBARA DEACON ONLY Document Available (#1043511377) STIFF PDE DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE Document Avai:nie (#1043511377) STIFF | PDF ORDER GAM! TING EXTENSION Document Availahie (41043662926) ]TIFF POF PROTECTIVE ORDER - SIGNED PROTECTIVE OnDER Document Avail ie (1043862309) TIFF PDF COURT REM 1 ER FEE-TRIAL ON MERITS Count Party Amou $20 $2c