Motion to Compel in ALLSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE CO VS LSP PRODUCTS GROUP INC| Trellis.Law

On September 21, 2020 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Allstate Fire & Casualty Insurance Co, Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Co, Liberty Insurance Corp, Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co, United Services Automobile Association, Usaa Casualty Insurance Co, and Lsp Products Group Inc, for Tort - Product Liability Tort* in the District Court of Gwinnett County.

Preview
IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA
ALLSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY )
INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. )
)
Plaintiffs, ) CASE NO: 20-C-06305-S4
)
v. )
)
LSP Products Group, Inc. )
)
Defendant. )

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION TO RESPOND
TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO COMPEL

Defendant LSP Products Group, Inc. (“LSP”), by and through undersigned counsel, moves

the Court to extend its deadline to file a substantive response to Plaintiffs’ motions to compel

discovery and depositions of Defendant’s expert and corporate witnesses. As grounds for the

extension, LSP states as follows:

1. Plaintiff served LSP with initial discovery on or about January 25, 2021. LSP

answered Plaintiffs’ discovery to the best of its ability with the information it had on February 24,

2021. (See LSP’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories and Requests for Production

attached hereto as Exhibit “A”). LSP further supplemented its responses to the best of its ability

without having access to the parts at issue on or about September 27, 2021. (See LSP’s First

Supplemental Responses to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories and Requests for Production attached

hereto as Exhibit “B”).

2. LSP included several objections in its initial and supplemental discovery responses

advising that once LSP is afforded an opportunity to inspect all hoses relevant to the subject action,

LSP would supplement its discovery responses and production with substantive information and

1
documents responsive to Plaintiff’s discovery requests to the extent LSP possesses such responsive

information and/or documents. (See e.g., Ex. B).

3. The parties have tentatively agreed upon dates to hold inspections of hoses relevant

to this litigation. The inspections are scheduled to take place in Atlanta, GA on June 1st and 2nd

with backup dates of June 13th through 16th.

4. Consistent with LSP’s position throughout the discovery process, once LSP and its

experts are given the opportunity to inspect the subject hoses, LSP will supplement its discovery

responses with substantive information and production. Further, upon inspection of the subject

hoses and providing substantive responses, LSP will make its experts, corporate representative,

and fact witnesses available for depositions. (See Discovery Email Correspondence attached

hereto as Exhibit “C”).

5. LSP has not had enough substantive information regarding the specific products at

issue to provide sworn responses requested by Plaintiffs’ counsel. The inspections will provide

LSP with enough information regarding the hoses at issue in this litigation to provide Plaintiffs

with the substantive responses and production responsive to Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.

6. Based on the information provided in the forgoing paragraphs, LSP moves the

Court to extend the deadline to respond to Plaintiffs’ motions to compel discovery and depositions.

LSP believes the parties’ discovery disputes will be resolved upon completing the inspections

scheduled to take place on June 1st and 2nd. Further, LSP will be able to provide substantive

responses to Plaintiffs’ counsel following the inspections as LSP will have the information

necessary to confirm the identity of the products at issue and provide documents related to the

products at issue in this litigation.

2
Wherefore, LSP moves this Court to extend the deadline for LSP to respond to Plaintiffs’

motions to June 16, 2023. LSP believes that all discovery issues raised in Plaintiffs’ motions will

be resolved as the parties are working towards a resolution to the discovery issues in this matter.

The pivotal event of setting dates for the inspections has taken place and upon inspecting the

products at issue in this litigation, LSP will further substantively respond to Plaintiffs’

interrogatories and discovery requests.

Respectfully submitted, this 15th day of May 2023.

BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN,
CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ

/s/ Matthew J. Leonard
Matthew J. Leonard
Georgia Bar No. 101944
3414 Peachtree Rd., NE, Ste 1500
Atlanta, GA 30326
Phone: (404) 221-6529
Fax: (404) 221-6501
mleonard@bakerdonelson.com

Attorney for Defendant LSP Products Group, Inc.

3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR TIME EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTIONS TO

COMPEL by Statutory Electronic Service to the following attorneys of record:

Keri Ware, Esq.
WILSON, MORTON & DOWNS, LLC
125 Clairemont Avenue
Two Decatur Town Center, Suite 420
Decatur, Georgia 30030
kware@wmdlegal.com
Gregory I. Dolsky, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT A. STUTMAN, P.C.
500 Office Center Drive, Suite 301
Fort Washington, PA 19034
dolskyg@stutmanlaw.com

Respectfully submitted this 15th day of May 2023.

/s/ Matthew J. Leonard
Matthew J. Leonard
Georgia Bar No. 101944
Attorney for Defendant LSP Products Group, Inc.

4
EXHIBIT A
IN THE STATE COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

ALLSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY )
INSURANCE COMPANY, GARRISON )
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY )
INSURANCE COMPANY, LIBERTY )
INSURANCE CORPORATION, )
LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE )
COMPANY, UNITED SERVICES )
AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and ) CIVIL ACTION FILE NO:
USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE ) 20-C-06305-S4
COMPANY A/S/O INSUREDS, AS )
LISTED ON “SCHEDULE” A AND/OR B ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
LSP PRODUCTS GROUP, INC.

Defendant.

RESPONSE OF LSP PRODUCTS GROUP, INC. TO
PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST INTERROGATORIES

Pursuant to O.C.G.A. §9-11-33, and through undersigned counsel, Defendant LSP

Products Group, Inc. (“LSP”) hereby responds to Plaintiffs’ first interrogatories as follows:

PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS

This “mass action” is a mess of Plaintiffs’ creation. Plaintiffs’ efforts to aggregate multiple,

small value claims involving distinct claimants, liability theories, occurrences, properties, acts of

negligence and products into a single lawsuit continues to generate confusion and opportunities

for error.

Plaintiffs never asked for the Court’s blessing or permission to join these nine (9) discrete

claims into a single lawsuit. Plaintiffs never sought to secure a finding or ruling to justify the

aggregation of these claims as arising from the same transaction or occurrence, or the same “series
of transactions or occurrences.” This decision was never sought because there is no such basis and

the bundling scheme behind this case does not square with the rules of civil procedure.

The procedural posturing of this lawsuit can be summarized by the following statements

from Stutman Law’s website: “We pioneered the concept of identifying a common failure mode

and grouping together claims into mass tort subrogation actions.”1 Stutman Law counsel markets

its “mass action” model to insurance carriers as a means by which to “group subrogation claims

that are too small to litigate on an individual basis” and touts its ability to recover monies “on

cases that have historically been closed due to lack of perceived subrogation potential.”2

These representations are telling. There is no legal reason why the claims are “too small to

litigate on an individual basis.” Indeed, the nine (9) claims at issue meet the jurisdictional

minimums to be individually filed and adjudicated in the exact same manner such claims have

been litigated for years. Rather than observe venue laws and recognize the pitfalls of forum non

conveniens dismissals, the same firm has insisted on bundling claims that would otherwise not be

“economically viable,” or stated another way, “not worth bothering with.” Indeed, the true motive

for Plaintiffs’ aggregation claims is the touted “economic objectives of streamlined litigation”3

that their counsel claim to be pioneering. In other words, Plaintiffs seek to invoke aggregation of

discrete claims to reduce their internal administrative costs to make it worth their while to file

cases that are otherwise “too small to litigate.”

This case originally involved five (5) claims filed by four different insurance carriers

standing the shoes of five different insureds who allegedly incurred damages from 2015 to 2017

at five (5) unique real properties in five (5) different cities in Georgia including Camilla, Marietta,

1
Stutman Law Firm website, https://www.stutmanlaw.com/product-failure/ (last accessed December 28, 2020).
2
Id. (emphasis added)
3
Plaintiffs’ Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Pursuant to NRCP 59(e) filed in the Nevada Mass Action on August
24, 2018, p. 4, lines 11–15 (filed by the Stutman Law Firm’s local counsel in Nevada) (furnished upon request).
2
Smyrna, Woodstock and Cumming relating to five (5) discrete toilet connectors that were installed

by five different installers.4

Each of the original five (5) claims had been previously forum-shopped and dismissed for

forum non conveniens. Specifically, on April 12, 2018, the same firm filed another, different “mass

action” against LSP in Carson City, Nevada styled, Case No. 18-TRT-00015-1B; Allstate Fire &

Casualty Ins. Co., et al. v. LSP Products Group, Inc. (“First Nevada Mass Action”). The Nevada

Mass Action included the original five (5) claims in this lawsuit which were: (1) Allstate a/s/o

David Dudley; (2) Allstate a/s/o Muhunthan Navarathnarajah; (3) Garrison Property a/s/o

Alexander Harrington; (4) Liberty Mutual a/s/o William & Kim Taylor; and (5) USAA a/s/o

Mahala & Paul Culpepper.5

On August 6, 2018, the First Nevada Mass Action was dismissed for forum non conveniens

by Nevada District Court Judge Wilson.6 The Order provided claimants a savings clause “so long

as the plaintiffs promptly file new lawsuits in the states where the harm allegedly occurred.” It was

that last provision that stuck in counsels’ craw, evidently, prompting an appeal because it

prevented aggregating claims arising across the country into a single action.7 On May 29, 2020,

the Nevada Supreme Court rejected their argument and affirmed the Order dismissing the case for

forum non conveniens.8

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint was filed on November 16, 2020. The Amended

Complaint has added four (4) more claims. Three of those new claims were forum shopped twice

before being filed in Georgia. Those claims include (1) Liberty Mutual a/s/o Kelvin Harris; (2)

4
Plaintiffs’ Complaint filed on September 21, 2020, Schedule A.
5
See Nevada Mass Action Complaint, Schedules A and B, filed on 4/12/2018 (furnished upon request).
6
Id.
7
See Appellants’ Opening Brief in the First Nevada Mass Action dated September 4, 2019; Nevada Order Granting
Motion to Dismiss (August 6, 2018), p. 6 and Amended Order Granting Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens
(November 8, 2018), (furnished upon request).
8
See Order of Affirmance from Nevada Supreme Court (May 29, 2020) (furnished upon request).
3
USAA a/s/o Adria Douglas; and (3) USAA a/s/o Joseph Murray. On September 16, 2016 the

Stutman firm filed a lawsuit in Dallas County styled, Cause No. CC-16-04861-E; Auto Club

Indemnity Co., et al. v. LSP Products Group, Inc.; Dallas County Court at Law No. 5 (“Auto Club

Case”). The Auto Club Case originally involved 62 discrete incidents of property damage brought

by 18 insurance carriers each of whom was represented by the Stutman firm. Forty-eight (48) of

the 62 claims occurred in states other than Texas including Harris, Douglas and Murray.

On May 17, 2018, the judge presiding over the Auto Club Case entered an Agreed Order

dismissing all non-Texas claims for forum non conveniens.9 The Agreed Order dismissed the non-

Texas based occurrences and directed Plaintiffs to refile the dismissed claims in “appropriate

forums” within 60 days of the Order. Instead of obeying the Order and refiling the 34 dismissed

out-of-state claims in “appropriate forums,” the same firm filed yet another Nevada lawsuit

containing the 34 claims that were dismissed for forum non conveniens in the Auto Club Case.

That lawsuit is styled, CSAA Insurance Exchange, et al. v. LSP Products Group, Inc., Case No.

18TRT000371B, Department I (“Second Nevada Mass Action”).10 On October 6, 2020, the

Nevada Courts again granted a Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens, ordering Plaintiffs

to again file lawsuits in the states where the harm occurred.11

LSP objects to providing any discovery responses to the twice dismissed claims of (1)

Liberty Mutual a/s/o Kelvin Harris (DOL 10/16/2015); (2) USAA a/s/o Adria Douglas (7/2/2013);

and (3) USAA a/s/o Joseph Murray (DOL 12/24/2013). Plaintiffs violated (or ignored) the Auto

Club Order requiring that the actions be filed in the appropriate forums. Hence, these claims are

barred by the statute of limitations.

9
See Agreed Order Granting Motions to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens (May 17, 2018) (furnished upon request).
10
See Plaintiffs’ Complaint for the Second Nevada Mass Action (July 16, 2018) (furnished upon request).
11
See Order on Request for Decision on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens (October 6, 2020)
in the Second Nevada Mass Action, (furnished upon request).
4
The current lawsuit now includes nine (9) separate and discrete claims which Plaintiffs

segregate in their own Complaint between plastic nut claims and corrosion-based failures which

occurred on nine separate dates from July 23, 2013 through October 1, 2017. In keeping with their

indiscriminate bundling practice, Plaintiffs now invite error by serving one aggregated set of

Interrogatories and Requests for Production for all nine (9) discrete claims each of which involves

a discrete product, installer, insured, insurance policy, damages witnesses, and unique real

properties located in Camilla, Marietta, Smyrna, Loganville, Woodstock, Cumming, Roswell and

Alpharetta, Georgia. LSP objects to Plaintiffs improper bundling scheme wherein separate and

discrete events and losses have been aggregated so that opposing counsel can make more money.

LSP objects to each of Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories as compound, multifarious and confusing because

they seek information about nine (9) separate claims.

LSP further objects to Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories as overly broad and unduly burdensome

and in gross disproportion with the needs and circumstances of the case. These are low value

subrogation property damage claims which Plaintiff have aggregated because they are “too small

to litigate on an individual basis.” Only three claims (33%) in this case allege damages more than

$50,000. Four of the claims (44%) allege damages less than $12,165. Despite these facts,

Plaintiffs have indiscriminately served 40 numbered Interrogatories and 81 Requests for

Production (not counting subparts) for all nine claims. These requests are grossly over broad and

not reasonably tailored to lead to the discovery of relevant or admissible evidence in these claims.

For instance, Plaintiffs purport to have LSP respond to no less than 121 numbered written

discovery requests (not including subparts) for the $4,626 Kelvin Harris claim, the $4,488

Culpepper claim, the $10,610 Adria Douglas claim or the $12,165 Taylor claim.

5
In addition to the foregoing, this is a products liability case and almost every one of the

subject Interrogatories and Requests for Production asks for information about the products. To

date, Plaintiffs have not tendered the products for non-destructive examination and identification.

Instead, Plaintiffs purport to have LSP provide sworn answers to interrogatories based on

photographs taken by lawyers. LSP objects to each discovery request to the extent it requires LSP

to speculate or assume facts not in evidence because it has not been afforded the opportunity to

inspect the products at issue. The products weigh less than a pound and can be shipped in an

envelope to LSP via Federal Express at LSP’s expense. This is not a plane crash or a derailed train

where the parties must come to the evidence. Plaintiffs have provided no logical explanation for

the resistance to sending the products for non-destructive examination. Presumably, Plaintiffs

already had their experts review the products to determine if there were viable claims of defect

before the lawsuit was ever filed. Defendant will supplement following its inspection of the

products at issue, as able.

GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 1

LSP objects to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories to the extent they seek documents or

information protected by the attorney-client privilege or any other applicable privilege or

immunity. No response by LSP herein is intended to, or shall, waive any such applicable privilege

or immunity. In this regard, no privilege, immunity, or objection is intended to be waived by the

inadvertent, unintentional, or unauthorized disclosure of such information to Plaintiffs. As used

herein, the term “non-privileged” refers to documents not subject to the attorney-client privilege

or any other privilege or immunity.

6
GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 2

LSP objects to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories to the extent that they seek confidential,

proprietary, and/or sensitive business information and/or confidential information about third

persons not parties to this action absent a protective order or agreement.

GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 3

Discovery in this matter and LSP’s investigation of Plaintiffs’ claims and LSP’s defenses

is ongoing. LSP reserves the right to amend its responses in light of subsequently discovered facts.

LSP undertakes no obligations other than those imposed by O.C.G.A. § 9-11-26 to supplement

these responses.

GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 4

LSP object to Plaintiffs’ First Interrogatories to the extent any of them calls for information

already in the possession or control of Plaintiffs and/or to the extent such information is reasonably

and equally available to Plaintiffs from third parties.

GENERAL OBJECTION NO. 5

All responses are made without waiving, or intending to waive, the right to object on the

grounds of competency, privilege, relevance or materiality, or any other grounds, to the use of any

information disclosed pursuant to the discovery requests and any subsequent step or proceeding in

this action or any other action. LSP also reserves the right to object on any and all grounds, at any

time, to subsequent discovery procedures involving or relating to the subject matter of each and

every individual discovery request set forth in Plaintiffs’ discovery.

These general objections are incorporated into each of the responses below.

7
CONDITIONS OF RESPONSES

1. Facts and evidence now known may be imperfectly understood, or the relevance or

consequences of such facts and evidence may be imperfectly understood, and, accordingly, such

facts and evidence may, in good faith, not be included and/or reflected in the following responses.

2. Except for explicit facts stated herein, no incidental and/or implied admissions by

LSP are intended by or in any response. The fact that LSP has responded to any interrogatory

should not be taken as an admission that LSP accepts or admits the existence of any facts set forth

or assumed by such interrogatory. The fact that LSP has responded to part of any interrogatory is

not intended and shall not be construed to be a waiver by LSP of all or part of any part of any

objection to any interrogatory.

3. LSP assumes no obligations to supplement or amend these responses to reflect

identity of witnesses, facts, and evidence following the filing of these responses, except as

otherwise required under the Georgia Rules of Civil Procedure or by Court order.

INTERROGATORIES

1. State the date of manufacture of the water supply lines that are the subject matter

of the Complaint. The water supply lines referred to in the Complaint are depicted in photographs

in Exhibits A through I; see instruction (H).

ANSWER:

LSP asserts its Preliminary and General Objections. Plaintiffs have not tendered the

products for non-destructive examination and identification. Instead, Plaintiffs purport to

have LSP provide sworn answers to interrogatories based on photographs taken by lawyers.

Specifically, Plaintiffs reference photographs as Exhibits A through I. However, Plaintiffs

failed to attach the photographs to the discovery requests. The products weigh less than a

8
pound and can be shipped in an envelope to LSP via Federal Express at LSP’s expense.

Defendant will supplement following its inspection of the products at issue, if able.

2. State LSP’s internal designation for the make, model number, and any other

descriptive identifier, for the water supply lines, plastic coupling nuts, flexible hoses, hose

sheathings or hose coverings, which are the subject matter of the Amended Complaint in this

litigation and depicted in Exhibits A through I.

ANSWER:

LSP asserts its Preliminary and General Objections. Plaintiffs have not tendered the

products for non-destructive examination and identification. Instead, Plaintiffs purport to

have LSP provide sworn answers to interrogatories based on photographs taken by lawyers.

Specifically, Plaintiffs reference photographs as Exhibits A through I. However, Plaintiffs

failed to attach the photographs to the discovery requests. The products weigh less than a

pound and can be shipped in an envelope to LSP via Federal Express at LSP’s expense.

Defendant will supplement following its inspection of the products at issue, if able.

3. If known or knowable to the responding defendant, please state the average amount

of time elapsing between the sale of water supply lines of the type and vintage depicted in Exhibits

A through I by the responding defendant and the sale of the product to the ultimate user or

consumer.

ANSWER:

LSP asserts its Preliminary and General Objections. LSP further objects to the terms

“water supply lines of the type and vintage” as vague and undefined. Plaintiffs have not

tendered the products for non-destructive examination and identification. Instead, Plaintiffs

purport to have LSP provide sworn answers to interrogatories based on photographs taken

9
by lawyers. Specifically, Plaintiffs reference photographs as Exhibits A through I. However,

Plaintiffs failed to attach the photographs to the discovery requests. The products weigh less

than a pound and can be shipped in an envelope to LSP via Federal Express at LSP’s expense.

Defendant will supplement following its inspection of the products at issue, if able.

4. Please identify the agent, servant, or employee of LSP most knowledgeable

regarding the drafting and designing of warnings and instructions, including package warnings and

instructions, which would have accompanied or been supplied with the water supply lines which

are the subject of this action and depicted in Exhibits A through I.

ANSWER:

LSP asserts its Preliminary and General Objections. LSP further objects to this

Interrogatory because it is not reasonably tailored to lead to the discovery of relevant or

admissible evidence in this case. Plaintiffs have not tendered the products for non-

destructive examination and identification. Instead, Plaintiffs purport to have LSP provide

sworn answers to interrogatories based on photographs taken by lawyers. Specifically,

Plaintiffs reference photographs as Exhibits A through I. However, Plaintiffs failed to attach

the photographs to the discovery requests. The products weigh less than a pound and can

be shipped in an envelope to LSP via Federal Express at LSP’s expense. Defendant will

supplement following its inspection of the products at issue, if able.

5. Please identify the present and former agents, servants, or employees of the

responding defendant having the most knowledge of the design of the plastic coupling nut(s) of

the water supply lines which are the subject of this action and depicted in Exhibits A through G.

With regard to any former employees, agents, or servants identified in this response, please provide

the last known address and contact information for such individuals.

10
ANSWER: