Islamic Services Foundation v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company

-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ISLAMIC SERVICES 	§
FOUNDATION d/b/a Brighter 	§
Horizons Academy, 	§
Plaintiff, 	§
§
v. 	§ 	No. 3:25-CV-1333-L
§
PHILADELPHIA INDEMNITY 	§
INSURANCE COMPANY, 	§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Plaintiff Islamic Services Foundation (“ISF”) filed a Motion to Compel on
December 16, 2025. (Dkt. No. 15 (“Mot.”).) Defendant Philadelphia Indemnity
Insurance Company (“PIIC”) responded on January 6, 2026 (Dkt. No. 17
(“Resp.”)), and ISF filed its reply on January 13, 2026 (Dkt. No. 19 (“Reply”)).1
United States District Judge Sam A. Lindsay referred the Motion to the undersigned
magistrate judge for a hearing, if necessary, and determination pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b). (Dkt. No. 16.)
1 At the Court’s direction, the parties refiled their primary briefs and supported
appendices on January 26 to comply with local rules concerning the use of supporting
documents. (See Dkt. No. 20.) ISF subsequently filed its corrected brief (Dkt. No. 23) and
appendix (Dkt. No. 24 (“P. App.”)). PIIC also filed its corrected brief (Dkt. No. 21) and
appendix (Dkt. No. 22 (“D. App.”)). Because the Court intended the refiling to only correct
the appendices and brief citations to comply with Northern District of Texas Local Civil
Rules 7.1 and 7.2, the Court relies on the original briefs and uses the corrected briefs to
locate and cite supporting evidence in the corrected appendices.
Case 3:25-cv-01333-L Document 25 Filed 01/30/26 Page 1 of 12 PageID <pageID>

-2-
For the reasons that follow, the Court grants the motion in part and denies it
in part.
I. BACKGROUND
This is a first-party insurance claim dispute. ISF held a commercial property
insurance policy issued by PIIC with coverage from June 23, 2023 through June 23,
2024. ISF alleges that a hailstorm damaged its buildings located at 3145 and 3262
Medical Plaza Dr. in Garland, Texas, on September 24, 2023. It submitted a claim
on the PIIC policy on July 18, 2024. On September 30, 2024, PIIC declined
coverage, stating that its investigation showed that the damage to ISF’s properties
resulted from storms that preceded the applicable coverage period, in either 2013 or
2016. (P. App. 456.)
By its motion to compel, ISF seeks an order requiring PIIC to produce
documents and provide a corporate representative to testify pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 30(b)(6) on certain objected-to topics. Specifically, ISF seeks responses to the
following requests for production:
Request for Production No. 4: Produce your complete Underwriting
File for Plaintiff’s policy of insurance with you.
Request for Production No. 12: Produce the personnel file for anyone
you (or an adjusting firm) assigned to participate in evaluating damage
to Plaintiff’s Property, including performance reviews/evaluations.
This request is limited to the three (3) years prior to the Date of Loss
and one (1) year after the Date of Loss.
(Dkt. No. 24-1 (“P. App.”) at 462, 465.) The noticed deposition topics in dispute are
the following:
Case 3:25-cv-01333-L Document 25 Filed 01/30/26 Page 2 of 12 PageID <pageID>

-3-
1. Reserves and the manner in which they are calculated and set for
claims such as the one made [the] basis of this suit.
2. The policies, practices, and procedures for underwriting properties
insured by Defendant.
3. Whether Defendant conducted any underwriting or inspections prior
to the date of loss alleged in Plaintiff’s live pleadings and all documents
related to underwriting.
4. The manner and frequency in which Defendant decides to conduct
any inspection(s) and/or evaluations of the property or properties it
insures prior to issuance of policies on respective property or properties
5. The factors considered in Defendant’s evaluation of risk and
exposure of the subject property prior to the issuance of the Policy;
6. Whether any third-party assisted in Defendant’s evaluation of risk
and exposure of the subject property prior the issuance of the Policy,
and if so, the guidelines, procedures and policies in evaluation and any
other related documents;
7. All documents related to the underwriting process, including and
without limitation, all reports, photos, guidelines, and conclusions.
19. The use of master service agreements.
(See P. App. 486-87.)2
II. LEGAL STANDARDS AND ANALYSIS
Rule 26 provides for the discovery of “any nonprivileged matter that is
relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case,
considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in
2 In its motion, ISF also seeks an order compelling PIIC to present a witness with
respect to topic No. 12, which concerns Defendants’ defenses. (Mot. at 10-11.) In response,
PIIC clarified that it did not object to that topic and acknowledged that counsel’s
correspondence conferring on the discovery mistakenly created an appearance that it did.
(Resp. at 9.) Because PIIC has not objected to topic No. 12, ISF’s motion is denied as moot
as to that topic.
Case 3:25-cv-01333-L Document 25 Filed 01/30/26 Page 3 of 12 PageID <pageID>

-4-
controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’
resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the
burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevancy is broadly construed, and a request for discovery should
be considered relevant if there is ‘any possibility’ that the information sought may be
relevant to the claim or defense of any party.” Samurai Glob., LLC v. Landmark Am.
Ins. Co., No. 3:20-CV-3718-D, 2023 WL 2190190, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2023)
(quoting Taylor v. Rothstein Kass & Co., No. 3:19-CV-1594-D (N.D. Tex. Dec. 11,
2020) (internal quotation marks omitted)). A “party resisting discovery must show
specifically how each discovery request is not relevant or otherwise objectionable.”
Samsung Elecs. Am. Inc. v. Yang Kun "Michael" Chung, 325 F.R.D. 578, 590 (N.D. Tex.
2017).
A party may, under Rule 34, request documents and electronically stored
information. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1). And, if a party responding to such request
“fails to produce documents or fails to respond that inspection will be
permitted . . . as requested under Rule 34,” Rule 37 authorizes the requesting party
to file a motion seeking an order compelling the withholding party to produce the
requested discovery. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv).
Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) enables a party to depose a corporation, agency, or
other organization. When an organization receives a deposition notice that
“describe[s] with reasonable particularity the matters for examination,” Fed. R. Civ.
Case 3:25-cv-01333-L Document 25 Filed 01/30/26 Page 4 of 12 PageID <pageID>

-5-
P. 30(b)(6), it must designate one or more individuals to testifying on its behalf with
respect to each topic. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6). “Before or promptly after the
notice . . . is served, the serving party and the organization must confer in good faith
about the matters for examination.” Id.
The parties’ dispute concerns four categories of information sought by ISF’s
discovery. First, PIIC asserts that information about the amount it reserved for ISF’s
claim and the manner in which it calculated the reserves are irrelevant to the claims
and defenses in this case. Second, PIIC argues that its underwriting file is not
discoverable because the information contained therein is irrelevant. Third, PIIC
contends that the personnel files of any person or firm assigned to evaluate damage
to ISF’s property is overbroad and irrelevant and is an impermissible fishing
expedition. Fourth, PIIC argues that it should not be questioned about master
service agreements because it has none. The Court addresses each category in turn.
A. 	PIIC must provide a corporate witness to testify about reserves.
Deposition topic No. 1 concerns “[r]eserves and the manner in which they are
calculated and set for claims such as the one made [the] basis of this suit.” (P. App.
486.) PIIC contends that the issue of reserves and the manner in which they were set
is not relevant, notwithstanding that ISF has asserted claims for bad faith. (Resp. at
2-3.)
“Numerous courts within the Fifth Circuit have held that loss reserves are
relevant to claims of bad faith.” LEV Invs., Inc. v. Princeton Excess & Surplus Lines Ins.
Case 3:25-cv-01333-L Document 25 Filed 01/30/26 Page 5 of 12 PageID <pageID>

-6-
Co., 350 F.R.D. 86, 89 (N.D. Tex. 2025) (citing cases). ISF has alleges claims
against PIIC for bad faith insurance practices. The Court finds the three cases upon
which PIIC relies unpersuasive for the same reasons Judge Rutherford distinguished
them in LEV Investments. See id. Upon review of the claims asserted in this action,
the Court concludes that PIIC’s reserves are relevant to claims about the
investigation and valuation of ISF’s claims and alleged bad-faith settlement practices.
The Court grants ISF’s motion to compel with respect to deposition topic No. 1.
B. 	PIIC must provide discovery concerning its underwriting files and practices
relating to the decision to insure ISF’s property.
Request for Production No. 4 seeks PIIC’s “complete Underwriting File for
Plaintiff’s policy of insurance with [PIIC].” (P. App. 485.) Additionally, ISF’s
deposition notice identified topics pertaining to PIIC’s underwriting policies and
practices (No. 2), PIIC’s underwriting or inspection activities prior to the date of loss
alleged by ISF (No. 3), PIIC’s decision making concerning whether to conduct
inspections or evaluations of properties before insuring them (No. 4), the factors
PIIC considered in evaluating risk and exposure before insuring ISF’s property (No.
5); guidelines, procedures, and policies used by any third party who assisted PIIC in
evaluating the risk or exposure prior to insuring ISF’s property (No. 6), and
documents relating to the underwriting process (No. 7).
PIIC contends that ISF defined the “Underwriting File” so broadly as to
capture information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this case.
Nonetheless, it asserts, its decision to insure the property is irrelevant and ISF’s
Case 3:25-cv-01333-L Document 25 Filed 01/30/26 Page 6 of 12 PageID <pageID>

-7-
discovery requests are a mere fishing expedition. (Resp. at 4.) Girded by no
authority, PIIC asserts that information about the steps it took (or did not take)
before insuring ISF’s property and whether those actions were consistent with PIIC’s
policies and guidelines concerning inspection and evaluation of risk is irrelevant.
The Court rejects PIIC’s argument concerning relevance. PIIC declined the
claim based on its conclusion that the damage to ISF’s property preceded its
coverage, making relevant information about the pre-policy condition of the
property, steeps PIIC took to ascertain its condition, and its practices with respect to
the assessment of properties when issuing a policy. See Stanton 4433 Owners Ass'n v.
State Farm Lloyds, No. EP-20-CV-00280-FM, 2022 WL 17752218, at *4 (W.D. Tex.
Sept. 6, 2022); see also Tim Long Plumbing, Inc. v. Kinsale Ins. Co., No. 4:20-CV-00042,
2020 WL 6559869, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 9, 2020); Tri Invs., Inc. v. United Fire & Cas.
Co., No. 5:18-CV-116, 2019 WL 3308512, at *2 (S.D. Tex. May 24, 2019) (finding
information relating to the underwriting file irrelevant except “to the extent that
Defendant received or conducted any pre-loss inspection or evaluation of the
condition of properties”).
The parties also dispute whether PIIC may withhold documents responsive to
Request for Production No. 4 based on a claim of privilege. In its response to
Request for Production No. 4, PIIC objected to producing documents that are
entitled to confidential treatment because they contain “trade secrets or other
confidential business, research, development, or commercial information.” (P. App.
Case 3:25-cv-01333-L Document 25 Filed 01/30/26 Page 7 of 12 PageID <pageID>

-8-
462.) Confidentiality, however, is not synonymous with privilege when assessing
discoverability in civil litigation. See Hunsinger v. SKO Brenner Am., Inc., No. 3:13-
CV-0988-D, 2014 WL 114348, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2014) (“Confidentiality does
not act as a per se bar to disclosure or constitute grounds to withhold documents from
discovery.”); Panda Energy Int’l, Inc. v. Calpine Corp., No. 3:03-CV-2692-B, 2008 WL
11350196, at *2 (N.D. Tex. July 3, 2008) (“[I]t is never proper to withhold
information based on confidentiality concerns when a protective order is in
place[.]”). The Court overrules PIIC’s broad and unspecified objection based on
confidentiality. The parties may move the Court for entry of a confidentiality order
to address PIIC’s concerns.
To the extent PIIC indicates that it is withholding any documents based on a
claim of privilege, it has a duty to produce a privilege log pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(5)(A). PIIC acknowledges that, when it filed its response on January 6, it had
not produced a privilege log. (Resp. at 7.) It also states that “Plaintiff’s Motion to
Compel was the first time [PIIC] was notified that a privilege log was not provided
and that Plaintiff could not discern what privilege applied.” (Resp. at 7.) The Court
is puzzled by PIIC’s suggestion that its obligation to prepare a privilege log was
contingent upon ISF notifying PIIC that PIIC had not provided a privilege log and
that the privilege was not apparent. Nonetheless, having now been on notice for
weeks, the Court presumes that PIIC has been diligent in preparing a privilege log.
Case 3:25-cv-01333-L Document 25 Filed 01/30/26 Page 8 of 12 PageID <pageID>

-9-
PIIC is ORDERED to produce a privilege log in satisfaction of Rule 26(b)(5)(A)
within five days of this order.
The Court sustains PIIC’s objection in part as to the breadth of the requested
discovery. Deposition topic No. 7, for example, notices a deposition of PIIC on
“[a]ll documents related to the underwriting process, including and without
limitation, all reports, photos, guidelines, and conclusions.” This request appears to
extend far beyond the underwriting process relating to ISF’s policy at issue in this
case. The Court grants the motion to compel and requires PIIC to provide discovery
responsive to Request for Production No. 4 and deposition topic Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
and 7 relating to the inspections, evaluations, or underwriting process relating to
Plaintiffs’ property at issue or PIIC’s policies and practices that would have been
applicable to the policy involved in this case.
C. 	PIIC must provide documents responsive to Request for Production No. 12.
Request for Production No. 12 seeks the personnel file of anyone assigned to
participate in evaluating the damage to ISF’s property. (P. App. 465.) ISF limited
its request to materials created in the period from three years prior to and one year
after the date of loss. (P. App. 465.) PIIC objected to the request as irrelevant. (P.
App. 465.)
ISF alleges that PIIC did not conduct an objective investigation of its claim. It
argues that the personnel files containing education and training records,
performance reviews, and evaluations are relevant to the assessment of whether PIIC
Case 3:25-cv-01333-L Document 25 Filed 01/30/26 Page 9 of 12 PageID <pageID>

-10-
performed a reasonable investigation of its claim. Courts generally allow this
discovery, at least in part, in similar circumstances. See, e.g., Beck v. Allstate Vehicle &
Prop. Ins. Co., No. 3:16-CV-3244-D-BK, 2017 WL 11496870, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Sept.
25, 2017) (“[C]ourts routinely permit discovery of the personnel file of the claims
adjuster who adjusted the disputed claim.” (citing cases)); see also Thakore v. Shelter
Mut. Ins. Co., No. 6:23-CV-01108, 2024 WL 4393591, at *4 (W.D. La. Oct. 2, 2024);
Barber v. Dolgencorp of Texas, Inc., No. 4:09-CV-60, 2010 WL 1375193, at *2 (E.D.
Tex. Mar. 31, 2010) (compelling production of performance evaluations and
complaints).
The Court is unpersuaded by PIIC’s reliance on Dizdar v. State Farm Lloyds,
No. 7:14–CV–402, 2015 WL 12780640 (S.D. Tex. Jan. 21, 2015), to argue that the
information sought is wholly irrelevant. In that case, the court denied a motion to
compel personnel files as an overbroad fishing expedition to explore the plaintiff’s
hunch that the insurer financially incentivized employees to undervalue claims. See
id. at *6-7. That court recognized that the request was overbroad despite having
within it “ostensibly appropriate grounds”—i.e., that the adjuster was inadequately
trained and failed to properly evaluate the case. See id. at *7; see also Marvin United
Methodist Church v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., S.I., No. 6:23-CV-00555-JDK-JDL, 2024 WL
5701493, at *4 (E.D. Tex. July 25, 2024). Here, ISF seeks information pertaining to
the persons who assessed the damage to ISF’s property, and information sought
Case 3:25-cv-01333-L Document 25 Filed 01/30/26 Page 10 of 12 PageID <pageID>

-11-
concerning their training and evaluation is relevant to allegations that PIIC’s
investigation or evaluation of the claim was inadequate.
The Court grants the motion and orders PIIC to produce documents
responsive to Request for Production No. 12. The parties should confer toward the
goal of submitting a joint confidentiality order to protect any private information
produced in discovery.
D. 	ISF’s motion is denied as to deposition topic No. 19.
Deposition topic No. 19 provides notice of ISF’s intent to depose PIIC
concerning “[t]he use of master service agreements.” (P. App. 487.) PIIC avers that
it has no master service agreements (“MSAs”) with any third parties that it relied on
in the investigation of ISF’s claim. (Resp. at 8.) It argues that it cannot produce a
witness to testify about agreements that do not exist. Relying on Westheimer Regency
I, L.P. v. Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) SE, No. 5:18-CV-14-OLG, 2018 WL 7198643
(W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2018), ISF contends that merely denying that any MSA exists is
insufficient and asserts that PIIC must produce a corporate representative to say so.
(Reply at 4-5.) In Westhiemer Regency I, however, the judge was patently skeptical of
a party’s assertion that it had no procedures, policies, or manual relating to the
handling of property damage claims. See id. at *2 (characterizing such assertion as
“surprising”). Here, PIIC has clearly and unequivocally denied that there is any
MSA relating to the investigation of ISF’s claim. In the absence of any basis to
Case 3:25-cv-01333-L Document 25 Filed 01/30/26 Page 11 of 12 PageID <pageID>

-12-
doubt PIIC’s denial, the Court will not require it to produce a deposition witness to
confirm that denial.
In reply, ISF argues that, in the absence of any MSA, a PIIC corporate
deponent can still testify about “how it proceeded to delegate its obligations to
multiple third parties without any agreements in place.” (Reply at 5.) Although
such discovery might be permissible through other avenues, it does not fall within the
scope of the noticed topic concerning “master service agreements.” ISF’s motion is
denied as to deposition topic No. 19.
IV. CONCLUSION
As explained above, ISF’s motion to compel (Dkt. No. 15) is GRANTED in
part and DENIED in part. PIIC is ORDERED to provide a privilege log within five
days and to produce documents responsive to Request for Production Nos. 4 and 12
as provided herein within 21 days.
SO ORDERED on January 30, 2026.
BRIAN McKAY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 3:25-cv-01333-L Document 25 Filed 01/30/26 Page 12 of 12 PageID <pageID>