Signorelli v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Joeseph Signorelli,
Plaintiff,
v.
Twin City Fire Insurance Company,
Defendant.
No. CV-26-00358-PHX-JAT
ORDER
Pending before the Court is a discovery dispute submitted by the parties. (Doc. 25).
The parties dispute Defendant’s objections to producing two categories of documents: 1)
certain employees’ performance evaluations; and 2) advertising and marketing materials.
To begin:
Unless otherwise limited by court order, the scope of discovery is as follows:
Parties may obtain discovery regarding 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 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. Information within this scope of discovery need not be
admissible in evidence to be discoverable.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
I. Performance Evaluations
Plaintiff seeks production of the performance evaluations of: 1) three employees
who were involved in handling the claim at issue in this case and 2) each of those
employees’ supervisors. Plaintiff seeks this information because the evaluations “[may
Case 2:26-cv-00358-JAT Document 27 Filed 06/08/26 Page 1 of 5

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
show] institutional goals the defendant carrier may have set for claims-handling and will
show which adjuster behaviors are complimented and which are criticized.” (Doc. 25 at
1–2). Defendant objects arguing that the evaluations of the employees are not relevant
and are not proportional. (Doc. 25 at 1).
The Court will consider Defendant’s relevance objection. As to Defendant’s
proportionality objection, the Court is unclear what Defendant’s “proportionality”
objection is specifically.1 Later in the joint motion, Defendant states that this information
is otherwise readily available; thus, the Court assumes Defendant means Plaintiff should
seek this information via another source rather than a request for these evaluations.
Defendant offers no argument (and the Court cannot hypothesize one) that these
employees’ evaluations are so voluminous that the cost of production is disproportional to
the needs of this case. Defendant also makes no explicit argument that the employees’
privacy interest in the evaluations is not proportional to the needs of this case. Nonetheless,
this Court will balance these third parties’ privacy interests in this portion of their personnel
files against the needs of this case.2
On a general level, the Court overrules Defendant’s relevance objection to the topic
of employee evaluation and compensation. If Plaintiff’s speculation is correct–that
employees were evaluated based on denying (or reducing) claims–such information would
be relevant in a bad faith case. However, on a specific level, the Court sustains Defendant’s
objection as to whether Plaintiff has shown the relevance of these particular files. This
Court has previously found that blanket requests for entire files amount to a fishing
1 The parties chose to put both disputes in one joint motion. While the Court understands
the page limits of a discovery dispute motion as set by this Court’s Rule 16 order are very
short, the parties could elect to file one motion per dispute.
2 See Sanchez v. City of Santa Ana, 936 F.2d 1027 (9th Cir. 1990) (recognizing that
employee personnel files are not absolutely privileged but are of a confidential nature);
Blotzer v. L-3 Commc’ns Corp., 287 F.R.D. 507, 509 (D. Ariz. 2012) (noting that discovery
may be tailored to balance the needs of the case against a party’s reasonable expectations
of privacy.) McBeath v. Tucson Tamale Co., No. CV16-0462-TUC-DCB-BPV, 2017 WL
3118779, at *12 (D. Ariz. July 21, 2017) (citation omitted) (“When evaluating privacy
objections, the Court must balance the party’s need for the information against the
individual’s privacy right in his or her employment files.”).
Case 2:26-cv-00358-JAT Document 27 Filed 06/08/26 Page 2 of 5

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
expedition and denied such broad requests as follows:
[A]n overbroad blanket request can amount[] to a fishing expedition.
E.E.O.C., 2012 WL 2357261 at *1 (citing Lewin v. Nackard Bottling Co.,
No. CV 10-8041-PCT-FJM, 2010 WL 4607402, *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 4, 2010)
(granting motions to quash subpoenas as overbroad when the subpoenas
requested plaintiff’s complete personnel records from former employers);
Oyenik, 2014 WL 12787872 at *2 (quashing a subpoena “[b]ecause Plaintiff
has not limited his subpoena to certain categories of documents, [and
therefore,] Plaintiff is trying to engage in a ‘fishing expedition.’”)); Rivera v.
NIBCO, Inc., 364 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004) (“District courts need not
condone the use of discovery to engage in fishing expeditions.”) (internal
citation and quotations omitted).
Walker v. AIU Ins. Co., No. CV-23-01641-PHX-JAT, 2024 WL 4607473, at *2 (D. Ariz.
Oct. 29, 2024).
Here, other than hypothesizing that performance reviews may be tied to denying
claims, Plaintiff makes no showing that such a practice is occurring. This speculation is
insufficient, on this record, to overcome the employees’ privacy interest in their
employment evaluations (which may end up having no relevance to this case) being
disclosed. Plaintiff may depose these employees (and/or other managers or employees of
Defendant). If a deposition reveals a concrete need for the performance evaluations that is
relevant to bad faith, then Plaintiff can renew the request for the evaluations. See Romney
v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., No. CV-23-01936-PHX-ROS, 2024 WL 4503915, at *2
(D. Ariz. Oct. 16, 2024) (allowing production of personnel files after a deposition
established relevance). Thus, the Court sustains Defendant’s objection to the extent it is
based on Plaintiff being able to preliminarily obtain this information from another source.
II. Marketing Materials
Plaintiff also requests “marketing materials, newsletters, guidance or information
made available to insureds or prospects in years 2021-25.” (Doc. 25 at 2). Plaintiff argues
this information is relevant “because workers compensation carriers have been known to
market to employers by touting a record of holding down medical payments, paying less
on claims than industry averages, reducing time missed from work, etc.” (Id.). Defendant
objects arguing the request is “vague and ambiguous,” not relevant, not proportional, and
that production would be an undue burden. (Id.).
Case 2:26-cv-00358-JAT Document 27 Filed 06/08/26 Page 3 of 5

- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Court overrules the objection that the request is vague and ambiguous. A
company knows what it is expensing as marketing and advertising, and those general
promotional materials are what Plaintiff seeks.
The Court overrules the proportionality and undue burden objections because
Defendant makes no showing or argument regarding the amount of materials this request
encompasses; and therefore fails to show that the burden would be high.
As to relevance, Defendant does not offer, and the Court cannot hypothesize, how
else Plaintiff could obtain this information.3 Further, the Court is not balancing any interest
against disclosure given that this request calls for information that would have been sent to
either customers or prospective customers and not kept confidential. If Defendant promises
to pay low amounts on claims, such information would be relevant in a bad faith case.
Therefore, on this record, the Court overrules Defendant’s relevance objection to producing
the marketing materials.
In sum, the Court overrules all of Defendant’s objections to these materials.
III. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing,
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
3 Presumably Defendant does not want to disclose a client list and a prospective client list
and have Plaintiff subpoena all those customers and potential customers as to what
promotional material they received.
Case 2:26-cv-00358-JAT Document 27 Filed 06/08/26 Page 4 of 5

- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for discovery (Doc. 25) is granted in part and
denied in part as follows:
Defendant’s objection to producing the employees’ performance reviews is
sustained, without prejudice to Plaintiff making the request again if Plaintiff can establish
relevance/proportionality.
Defendant’s objection to producing marketing materials from 2021 to 2025 is
overruled. Defendant shall produce all responsive materials within 14 days of the date of
this Order.
Dated this 8th day of June, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00358-JAT Document 27 Filed 06/08/26 Page 5 of 5