Opinion

Hof v. LaPorte

Court
District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Filed
Sep 22, 2020
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

RONALD J. HOF IN HIS CAPACITY AS * CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-10696

CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE OF THE *

BANKRUPTCY ESTATE OF * SECTION: “D”(1)

FOODSERVICEWAREHOUSE.COM *

* JUDGE WENDY B. VITTER

VERSUS *

* MAGISTRATE JUDGE

LAPORTE, A PROFESSIONAL * JANIS VAN MEERVELD

ACCOUNTING CORPORATION, ET *

AL. *

*********************************** *

ORDER AND REASONS

Before the Court is the Motion to Compel filed by plaintiff Ronald Hof (the “Trustee”), in

his capacity as Chapter 7 Trustee of the bankruptcy estate of Foodservicewarehouse.com (“FSW”).

(Rec. Doc. 60). The Trustee seeks disclosure of the defense costs that have eroded the insurance

policy covering the claims he asserts in this litigation. For the following reasons, the Motion is

DENIED. Oral argument set for September 23, 2020, is CANCELLED.

Background

In this lawsuit, the Trustee, in his capacity as trustee of the Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Estate of

FSW alleges that LaPorte, APAC (“Laporte”) is liable for professional negligence arising out of

LaPorte’s performance of audit services for FSW for the 2013 and 2014 fiscal years. The Trustee

contends that the board of FSW relied on the 2013 audit in recommending and obtaining the

approval of FSW’s membership to explore the possibility of a public or private offering. To

achieve that goal, FSW began expanding and taking on debt. It sought $75,000,000 in financing

from JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) in June 2015. Chase began its field examination

around the time that LaPorte was completing its field work in connection with its 2014 audit of

FSW. According to the Trustee, Chase identified “numerous accounting deficiencies and

misstatements that LaPorte was required, but failed, to identify and disclose in its audit opinions.”

(Rec. Doc. 1-2, at 5). FSW was unable to remedy the issues identified and Chase declined to

advance funds to FSW in January 2016. FSW alleges that it brought in an experienced CPA/auditor

and a restructuring advisor in February and March of 2016, but it was determined that restructuring

would not be possible.

On May 20, 2016, FSW filed a bankruptcy petition. The Trustee filed this adversary

proceeding against LaPorte and its insurers, Continental Casualty Company (“Continental”) and

Ironshore Specialty Insurance Company (“Ironshore”) in bankruptcy court on May 13, 2019. The

Trustee alleges damages of at least $50,000,000 in debt that FSW incurred in the expansion, but

which it was unable to repay. On May 28, 2019, the Trustee filed a motion in this court to withdraw

the bankruptcy reference. Trial is presently set to begin on January 11, 2021. The deadline to

complete discovery is September 25, 2020.

The Trustee seeks to compel Continental to disclose defense costs that serve to reduce

insurance coverage limits in this matter. The Trustee argues that because unredacted insurance

policies must be disclosed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(iv), he is entitled to

discover both the policy limits and the amounts the limits have been reduced as a result of defense

costs. Defendants respond that the relevant insurance policies have been produced with only the

premium information redacted. They argue that the policy limits have thereby been disclosed, but

there is no basis for disclosing defense costs expended.

Law and Analysis

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “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.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(b)(1). “Information within this scope of discovery need

not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Id. The Rule requires consideration of the

following factors in assessing proportionality: “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.” Id.

Rule 26 also requires the parties make initial disclosures of certain discoverable

information to one another. This obligation includes the requirement that each party must provide

“for inspection and copying . . . any insurance agreement under which an insurance business may

be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the action or to indemnify or reimburse for

payments made to satisfy the judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(a)(1)(iv). In Robin v. Weeks

Marine, Inc., the defendant produced the insurance policy, but redacted the policy limits. No. CV

17-1539, 2017 WL 3311243, at *1 (E.D. La. Aug. 3, 2017). This court held that policy limits were

relevant and required disclosure of the unredacted insurance policy. Id. at *3.

The Trustee relies on the Robin case to argue that defendants must disclose defense costs

expended.1 The Trustee argues that he cannot know the policy limits unless he knows the amount

the actual policy limits have been eroded by defense costs. But as the defendants point out, the

Robin case did not involve disclosure of defense costs—only the actual policy limit. There is no

dispute that defendants here have produced the policies without redaction of the policy limits. The

Trustee provides no legal authority or policy reason supporting disclosure of defense costs under

Rule 26(a)(1)(iv).2 Nor has the Trustee explained the relevance or importance of LaPorte’s defense

costs to the present case. The court has no basis to find LaPorte’s defense costs discoverable.

1 The Trustee seeks to compel a response to Interrogatory No. 3, which asks Continental to list all claimants and the

status of claims against LaPorte’s Continental professional liability insurance policy, including all amounts paid in

defense costs incurred by Continental.

2 No reply memo was filed.

Conclusion

Because plaintiff has provided no basis on which to find the amounts paid in defense

costs are discoverable, the Trustee’s Motion to Compel is DENIED. Oral argument set for

September 23, 2020, is CANCELLED.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this 22nd day of September, 2020.

Janis van Meerveld

United States Magistrate Judge

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.