Free Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01324-JJF—LPS Document 116-6 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 1 of 2
oocmoanoc

Case 1:04-cv—01324-JJF-LPS Document 116-6 Filed 10/26/2005 Page 2 o£2
I age I of 2
I John S Spadaro
From: ”Curtis P. Cheyney"
I To: _ “John S Spadaro"
Sent: ‘ Thursday, May 12, 2005 2:50 Plvl
Subject: RE: Eames v. Nationwide; Nationwide's responses to document requests
I John, I have fonwarded your request to N\N's counsel and suggested a substantive responce. It possible and
teasable, can you suggest a protocol for a document sweep? What word order or phrase might you suggest. I
don't want to go through everyPlP, MedPay, BUIM and feret out any off hand comment by an adjuster that might
use "full" referring to the available PIP limit stated in the policy while considering a claim and making a claim log
entry; aiter—alI, no claim adjusters comment has relevance to the insureds state of mind when purchasing the
policy. Curt
From: John S Spadaro [mailto:[email protected]]
I Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 2:25 PM
To: Curtis P. Cheyney
Cc: Nicholas E. Skiles
I Subject: Eames v. Nationwide; Nationwide's responses to document requests
Mr. Cheyney:
. In Nationwide's responses to the Eames pIaintiffs' document requests, Nationwide interposes a general objection
to the effect that Nationwide's characterization of PIP limits as "full", or its discussion of that characterization, is
relevant and discoverable only to the extent that it appears in an insurance contract. We disagree; but for present
I purposes, I'd like to determine whether the disagreement is one of substance.
Suppose, for example, that Nationwide possessed an internal memorandum or minutes from a board meeting,
and a characterization of PIP limits as "full" appeared in that document. Nationwide's objection might mean that
. notwithstanding its response to Request Nos. 1 and 2 —- that it is "current|y unaware of any other documents that
legally characterize the PIP policy Iimits" -- Nationwide has never searched for our hypothetical document, simply
because it doesn't regard them as "legaIIy characterizing" PIP limits (whatever that means). Or it might mean that
Nationwide is aware of our hypothetical document, but is neither producing nor identifying it, because it doesn't
meet Nationwide's criterion for being a "legal characterization".
I Before we seek relief from the Court, I ask you to clarify the matter by answering three simple questions:
1. In responding to our document requests, has Nationwide searched all documents in its possession, custody or
control that might reasonably be expected to contain characterizations of PIP limits as “full", including intemal
I memoranda, guidelines and manuals, and minutes of board meetings?
2. Conversely. has Nationwide limited its search to insurance policies?
I 3. Is Nationwide aware of any documents in its possession, custody or control that do not consist of insurance
policies or parts of insurance policies, but do characterize PIP limits as "full"?
I In light of the compressed discovery schedule for class certification issues, I ask for your prompt response.
Thank you. John Spadaro
I 5/31/2005