Fill and Sign the In the United States District Court Michael E Marciano Form

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ______ COUNTY, ALABAMA *Plaintiffs, **vs. *CIVIL ACTION NO.:*_______________ LIFE *CV-_______INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., **Defendants.* PLAINTIFFS= MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT__________________________ INSURANCE COMPANY, TO RESPOND TO INTERROGATORIES 3 AND 4 AND REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 13 (essentially, asking for customer lists of ins. agents) COME NOW the above Plaintiffs, _____________________________________, by and through counsel, and move this Court for an Order compelling the Defendant noted above (hereinafter A_______________ @), to answer Plaintiffs= interrogatories 3 and 4 and Plaintiffs= Request for Production of Documents 13 propounded to said Defendant, and in support hereof, Plaintiffs state as follows:1.Plaintiffs filed and served with their Complaint, Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents to the Defendant, _______________.2._______________ responded to the above said discovery requests on or about September 17, 1998. In those responses, the Defendant stated objections to Plaintiffs= Interrogatories 3 and 4, and Request for Production 13. 3.Below are Interrogatories 3 and 4 and Request for Production 13, along with _______________=s Responses: INTERROGATORY 3 -2- Identify (with names, addresses, and social security numbers), all individuals who sere sold by ___________a similar type policy as the Plaintiffs between 1983 and 1993. RESPONSE:Defendant objects to this interrogatory in that it is irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as it is vague, ambiguous, imprecise and it requests information concerning a Asimilar@ policy to the policy sold to the Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects on the basis that the requested information is confidential and proprietary. INTERROGATORY 4Identify (with names, addresses, and social security numbers), all individuals who were sold by _________, a similar type policy as the Plaintiffs (the son=s 1988 policy), between 1988 and 1998.RESPONSE:Defendant objects to this interrogatory in that it is irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this interrogatory as it is vague, ambiguous, imprecise and it requests information concerning a Asimilar@ policy to the policy sold to the Plaintiffs. Defendant further objects on the basis that the requested information is confidential and proprietary.REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION 13Produce the policyholder/customer list (names and addresses) for __________ and _________ for each year between 1983 and 1993. RESPONSE:Defendant objects to this Request in that it is irrelevant, overly broad, unduly burdensome and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Defendant further objects to this request as it seeks confidential and proprietary information to which the Plaintiffs are not entitled. 4.As is apparent, these discovery requests relate to the customer lists of agents __________ and _________. Plaintiffs are clearly entitled to that information and documents. This case involves insurance fraud where the Plaintiffs allege fraudulent misrepresentations and -3- suppressions/concealment in the sale to them of life insurance policies. Under Alabama law, Plaintiffs are entitled to discovery of past or present clients of the agents involved in order to show pattern and practice of the Defendants. Evidence of prior and post similar acts of the Defendants has been repeatedly held in Alabama to be admissible to show fraud, scheme, motive, or intent. Ex parte Howell, 704 So.2d 479 (Ala. 1998); Ex parte Pate, 678 So.2d 762 (Ala. 1996); Ex parte Stephens, 676 So.2d 1307 (Ala. 1996); Ex parte Clarke, 582 So.2d 1064 (Ala. 1991); Ex parte Asher, Inc., 569 So.2d 733 (Ala. 1990). Plaintiffs are entitled to out-of- state customers as well as in-state customers. See BMW of North America v. Gore , 517 U.S. 559, 574, n20 & n21 (1996) (on Remand to Alabama Supreme Court: 701 So.2d 507 (Ala. 1997); Life Insurance of Georgia v. Smith, 719 So.2d 797 (Ala.1998). 5. As stated recently by the Supreme Court of Alabama, the United States Supreme Court=s opinion in Gore , supra, increased the necessity for a plaintiff alleging fraud and seeking punitive damages to seek pretrial discovery of similar alleged acts of misconduct by the defendant. This is so because the Court gave the factor of reprehensibility of the defendant=s conduct greater significance that it previously had. Ex parte Horton,711 So.2d 979(Ala. 1998). The Alabama Supreme Court in Horton, supra, specifically noted that because of this factor=s heightened significance and its inclusion of the consideration of the existence and frequency of similar past conduct, the plaintiffs have a Aneed for broad pre-trial discovery that might lead to evidence of similar misconduct by the defendant.@ Horton, 711 So.2d at 983-984; Life Insurance Company of Georgia, 719 So.2d at ____. -4- 6. Counsel for Plaintiffs has conferred with Defendant=s counsel orally, and these matters have not been resolved. Consequently, Plaintiffs filed the herein Motion for decision by the Court.WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court grant Plaintiffs= Motion to Compel, and Order Defendant to answer the herein Interrogatories and produce documents pursuant to the herein Request for Production within ten (10) days from the date of the said Order. JOHN DOE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.Attorneys for PlaintiffsPost Office Drawer ____Mobile, Alabama _____(334) ______________BY:______________________________________Plaintiff=s attorneyattorney=s number CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby certify that I have on this _____ day of ___________, served a copy of the foregoing pleading by mailing same by United States mail, properly addressed and first class postage prepaid, to the following:Defense counsel listed here________________________Plaintiff=s attorney