Superior Court Grants Motion for Reargument and Limits Discovery
TIG Ins. Co. v. Premier Parks, Inc., C.A. No. 02C-04-126 PLA, 2005 WL 468300 (Del. Super. Ct. Mar. 1, 2005).
This case involved whether TIG Ins. Co. ("TIG") met its contractual obligations to provide adequate counsel to defend Premier Parks, Inc. ("Six Flags") in an employment discrimination case. After initially granting plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, the court limited its ruling on reargument after it became clear that complying with the court's order would require manual searches of files rather than simple electronic searches.
Six Flags sought discovery regarding law firms TIG had chosen to defend class action lawsuits of other insureds over the last five years. On August 2, 2005, the court granted, in part, Six Flags' motion to compel, and ordered TIG to produce discovery in response to Six Flags' requests. When attempting to respond to the discovery requests, TIG discovered it had no method of electronically retrieving cases based on whether a class was certified. It could, however, search based on the amount expended in the case. Accordingly, it moved to reargue the motion to compel, arguing that the court "misapprehended the facts" when it originally granted the motion to compel. According to TIG, the court believed the search would be an easy electronic search rather than a burdensome search by hand. Granting the motion for reargument in part, the court modified its order and limited discovery to class actions files involving expenditures of over $500,000. The court noted that a broader search was unlikely to discovery relevant evidence.
Jason C. Jowers