Irby v. CSAA Insurance Exchange et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
KELLI IRBY,
Plaintiff,
v.
CSAA GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY d/b/a AAA INSURANCE,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. CIV-24-1142-D
ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff Kelli Irby’s Motion to Compel. [Doc. No. 36].
Defendant CSAA General Insurance Company (“CSAA”) filed its response. [Doc. No. 37].
Plaintiff did not file a reply in support of the instant motion, and the time to do so has
expired. Thus, the matter is fully briefed and at issue.
BACKGROUND
This action arises from Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s claim for underinsured
motorist (“UM”) benefits following a motor vehicle collision in which Plaintiff sustained
injuries. [Doc. No. 1-1]. As a result of Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s claim, she filed this
lawsuit against Defendant asserting, in relevant part, a bad faith claim and an award of
punitive damages. Id.
Savana Blake, the CSAA adjuster assigned to Plaintiff’s claim, testified at her
deposition that, when evaluating Plaintiff’s damages for purposes of assigning a value to
the claim, she did not assign separate values to each element of damages. [Doc. No. 36-9,
Case 5:24-cv-01142-D Document 56 Filed 06/05/26 Page 1 of 8

2
at p. 25-27]. Rather, she considered all elements collectively and assigned a single lump-
sum value. Id.
Following Ms. Blake’s deposition Plaintiff issued Request for Production No. 41.
[Doc. No. 36-1]. Request for Production No. 41 requests that Defendant “[p]roduce a copy
of all UM claim files in the State of Oklahoma, from 2022 through 2024.” Id. at p. 3. In
response, Defendant objected on the basis that the request was “overbroad, unduly
burdensome, and not reasonably or proportionately calculated to lead to the discovery of
relevant or admissible information.” Id.
In December 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant’s counsel held the prerequisite
conference prior to filing the instant Motion in an attempt to resolve their dispute. [Doc.
No. 36, at p. 1]. At the conference Plaintiff agreed to limit the request to Oklahoma UM
claim files from 2022 through 2024 that were handled by Ms. Blake, in which she denied
or limited payment of the claim because she determined there was sufficient coverage from
another insurance policy (“Revised RFP. No. 41”). [Doc. No. 36-2]. Defendant agreed to
determine how many claim files would be responsive to Plaintiff’s Revised RFP. No. 41.
[Doc. No. 36-3]. On December 30, 2025, Plaintiff’s counsel sent an email to Defendant’s
counsel regarding Defendant’s response to the Revised RFP. No. 41, but did not receive a
response prior to filing the instant Motion. [Doc. No. 36-7].
Plaintiff seeks to require Defendant to produce all documents responsive to her
original Request for Production No. 41, rather than her revised request. Plaintiff argues that
all of Defendant’s Oklahoma UM claim files from 2022 through 2024 are relevant to the
issue of whether “there is a pattern and practice at CSAA where adjusters do not itemize
Case 5:24-cv-01142-D Document 56 Filed 06/05/26 Page 2 of 8

3
their evaluations to comport with the elements of damages that their insureds are entitled
to under Oklahoma law.” [Doc. No. 36, at p. 13]. Plaintiff further argues that the requested
documents are necessary to “prove that Defendant is engaged in a pattern and practice of
inadequate investigation—resulting in inadequate valuation— of UM/UIM claims that
arises to the level of bad faith . . ..” Id. at p. 14.
In response, Defendant argues that the non-party UM claim files are irrelevant
because Oklahoma law does not require an adjuster to itemize her valuation of a claim, and
thus, failure to itemize has no bearing on whether it acted in bad faith. [Doc. No. 37, at p.
5-9]. Moreover, Defendant asserts that the request is overbroad and unduly burdensome
because it would necessitate the review of 298 claim files totaling approximately 235,718
pages, which it estimates would require approximately 2,357 hours to complete. Id. at p.
9-10. Furthermore, Defendant argues that to the extent the request seeks relevant
documents, the request should be limited to the Revised RFP. No. 41 because the parties
agreed to the revised request at the meet and confer conference. Id. at p. 9-10. Defendant
asserts that limiting the discoverable documents to the parties’ agreement yields 6 claim
files, which it concedes is not unduly burdensome to review and produce. Id.
STANDARD OF DECISION
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), “[p]arties 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 ....” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). The considerations that bear on
proportionality include “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
Case 5:24-cv-01142-D Document 56 Filed 06/05/26 Page 3 of 8

4
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of
the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Id. “Information within this scope of
discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id.
Relevance for purposes of discovery remains broader than relevance for purposes
of trial admissibility. Discovery is not, however, intended to be a “fishing expedition.”
McGee v. Hayes, 43 F. App'x 214, 217 (10th Cir. 2002) (unpublished). “[B]road discovery
is not without limits and the trial court is given wide discretion in balancing the needs and
rights of both plaintiff and defendant.” Gomez v. Martin Marietta Corp., 50 F.3d 1511,
1520 (10th Cir. 1995) (quotations and citation omitted). “When the request is overly broad,
or relevance is not clear, the party seeking the discovery has the burden to show the
relevance of the request.” Coffman v. Avem Bus. Sols., LLC, No. CIV-22-426-D, 2023 WL
8654942, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 14, 2023) (citing Design Basics, L.L.C. v. Strawn, 271
F.R.D. 513, 523 (D. Kan. Nov. 17, 2010)).
DISCUSSION
The Court finds that similar UM claim files, as defined infra., are relevant to
Plaintiff’s bad faith claim, in that they may show that Defendant conducted an inadequate
investigation. See Shotts v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 943 F.3d 1304, 1315 (10th Cir. 2019) (“A
plaintiff may also show bad faith by providing evidence that the insurer performed an
inadequate investigation of the claim.” (applying Oklahoma law) (citation omitted)).
Indeed, the records may show that when dealing with similar UM claims, Ms. Blake
itemized her valuations for each element of the claimants’ purported damages separately.
Case 5:24-cv-01142-D Document 56 Filed 06/05/26 Page 4 of 8

5
Thus, her failure to do so here and inability to testify as to the value she determined for any
element of Plaintiff’s damages arguably may evidence an inadequate investigation.
However, 	although 	Plaintiff 	argues 	that 	the 	relevant 	claim 	files 	are 	all 	of
Defendant’s Oklahoma UM claim files from 2022 through 2024, the Court finds that the
scope of relevant claim files is substantially narrower. The Court finds that the relevant
claim files are those responsive to the Revised RFP. No. 41 (i.e. all of Defendant’s UM
claims in Oklahoma from 2022 through 2024 that were handled by Ms. Blake in which she
denied or limited payment of the claim because she determined there was sufficient
coverage from another’s insurance policy).
Plaintiff has not shown how the other Oklahoma UM claim files handled by other
adjusters on various policies that may contain different terms and conditions are relevant
to show a pattern or practice of Defendant denying UM claims on the basis of inadequate
investigation, nor that such documents are otherwise relevant to the parties’ other claims
or defenses. See Magallan v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., No. 16-CV-668-CVE-FHM, 2017 WL
3579209, at *2 (N.D. Okla. Aug. 18, 2017) (limiting the scope of discoverable non-party
claim files).
Moreover, the Court finds Plaintiff’s reliance on Reibert v. CSAA Fire and Cas. Co.,
No. 17-CV-350, 2018 WL 279348 (N.D. Okla. Jan. 3, 2018) is misplaced. Rather than
supporting Plaintiff’s expansive request, Reibert supports the Court’s limitation. Indeed, in
Reibert, the plaintiffs’ roof was allegedly damaged by a storm, which was covered by the
defendant insurer’s policy. Id. at *1. The defendant hired an inspector, who found there was
no hail or wind damage to the roof. Id. at *1. During discovery it became apparent that the
Case 5:24-cv-01142-D Document 56 Filed 06/05/26 Page 5 of 8

6
inspector may not have had the relevant certifications or qualifications to inspect the roof.
Id.
Following the inspector’s deposition, the plaintiffs sought additional discovery from
the defendant regarding its use of the inspector on other roof claims in Oklahoma for the
prior three years and his reports for those claims. Id. at *1-2. In response to the additional
discovery requests the defendant objected to producing the inspector’s responsive reports.
Id. at *2. The defendant argued that the requested reports were not relevant, and that the
request was overbroad and unduly burdensome. Id. at *1. Additionally, the defendant
asserted that the discovery requested was not relevant because it did not learn that the
inspector lacked the necessary qualifications until his deposition, and that it reasonably
relied upon his advertised qualifications when retaining him. Id. Therefore, the defendant
argued that it was reasonable for it to rely on his report regarding the plaintiff’s roof in
denying the claim. Id. The plaintiffs filed a motion to compel. Id.
The court found that the relevance of the discovery was not readily apparent, and
thus, the burden of proof was on the plaintiffs. Id. at *5. The plaintiffs argued that the
information sought was relevant to the reasonableness of the defendant’s reliance on the
investigator’s report in denying their claim, and to show a state-wide consistent pattern of
the defendant denying claims in which the inspector conducted an inspection. Id. The
defendant argued that the plaintiffs’ requested discovery was a fishing expedition, and that
the other claims had no relevance as there are various reasons that support those denials.
Id.
Case 5:24-cv-01142-D Document 56 Filed 06/05/26 Page 6 of 8

7
The court found that the plaintiffs’ requested discovery was relevant, but only to the
extent limited by the court. Id. 	at *6. Indeed, the court limited the investigator’s
discoverable reports to his reports on behalf of the defendant regarding wind and hail
claims in the State of Oklahoma for the two years prior to the inspection. Id. at *6-9. The
court found that the responsive reports were relevant to whether the defendant’s reliance
on the investigator’s report in denying the plaintiffs’ claim was reasonable and in good
faith. Id. at *6. Moreover, in support of its finding the court noted that the plaintiffs were
seeking the investigator’s reports, “rather than the entire claim files.” Id. at *8.
Here, unlike the discovery request in Reibert that was limited to the inspector’s
reports, Plaintiff’s expansive request is not limited to the other UM claim files that were
investigated by Ms. Blake. Additionally, the discovery request in Reibert was limited to
reports on similar claims— hail and wind damage, but Plaintiff’s original request is not
limited to similar claims. However, like in Reibert, the claim files that the Court finds are
discoverable require both Ms. Blake’s involvement and similarity in underlying claims.
Because Defendant has conceded that the Revised RFP No. 41 is not overbroad or
unduly burdensome, the Court does not and need not address the issue.
CONCLUSION
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of
Documents [Doc. No. 36] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant
shall produce all of its Oklahoma UM claim files from 2022 through 2024 that were
handled by Savana Blake in which she denied or limited payment of the claim because she
Case 5:24-cv-01142-D Document 56 Filed 06/05/26 Page 7 of 8

8
determined there was sufficient coverage under another insurance policy. Defendant shall
produce these documents within twenty-one (21) days from the date of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 5 th day of June, 2026.
Case 5:24-cv-01142-D Document 56 Filed 06/05/26 Page 8 of 8