LLC v. USAA USAA (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO STRIKE # 122

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiff has filed this Joint Application for a Bill of Discovery dated November 26, 2012.   The defendant is the USAA Insurance Agency, Inc. (“USAA”).  The plaintiff seeks to discover the address of a woman by the name of Ruth Hochman–Sohn who is claimed to be insured by USAA. The claim in the application is that the plaintiff has been unable to obtain the address of Ruth Hochman–Sohn who is a witness and party in another civil action entitled Marcia Palma v. Ruth Hochman Sohn et al., Docket No. AAN CV 09–6001668.   The Palma action was filed at an earlier time and has been ongoing.   The present application is to seek the court to order the insurance company for Ruth Hochman–Sohn to disclose any address they may have for her.   The defendant has filed this motion to strike arguing that the Application for a Bill of Discovery is legally insufficient and should be denied.

DISCUSSION

“The purpose of a motion to strike is to contest ․ the legal sufficiency of the allegations of any complaint ․ to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, 262 Conn. 480, 498, 815 A.2d 1188 (2003).  “[T]he moving party admits all facts well pleaded.”  R.K. Constructors, Inc. v. Fusco Corp. et al., 231 Conn. 381, 383 n.2, 650 A.2d 153 (1994).  “If facts provable in the complaint would support a cause of action, the motion to strike must be denied.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Batte–Holmgren v. Commissioner of Public Health, 281 Conn. 277, 294, 914 A.2d 996 (2007).  “A motion to strike is properly granted if the complaint alleges mere conclusions of law that are unsupported by the facts alleged.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Fort Trumbull Conservancy, LLC v. Alves, supra, 498.   The court should “construe the complaint in the manner most favorable to sustaining its legal sufficiency.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Sullivan v. Lake Compounce Theme Park, Inc., 277 Conn. 113, 117, 889 A.2d 810 (2006).

In the present action the defendant argues that the plaintiff has failed to plead that the action supports a probable cause finding for a potential cause of action and that the plaintiff has an alternative method for obtaining the information it seeks in the present application.   Lastly, the defendant contends that the information requested is protected from disclosure in accordance with state law and thus the application must be stricken.

In an application for a bill of discovery, the plaintiff “must demonstrate by detailed facts that there is probable cause to bring a potential cause of action.   Probable cause is the knowledge of facts sufficient to justify a reasonable man in the belief that he has reasonable grounds for presenting an action ․ Its existence or nonexistence is determined by the court on the facts found.   Moreover, the plaintiff who seeks discovery in equity must demonstrate more than a mere suspicion, he must also show that there is some discernible sense of wrong.   The plaintiff need not, however, state each claim with technical precision, he need only set forth facts that fairly indicate that he has some potential cause of action.”  Berger v. Cuomo, 230 Conn. 1, 5–6, 644 A.2d 333 (1994).

The Joint Application filed contends:  “The whereabouts and current address of Ruth Hochman–Sohn is material and necessary to the pending action ․ so that discovery may be had (sic) gathered, and so that the applicants can defend their interests in Palma's lawsuit concerning the allegedly defective condition. 9. There is probable cause that the Joint Application for Bill of Discovery will produce information which is material and necessary to the pending lawsuit entitled Marcia Palma v. Ruth Hochman–Sohn et al.   Based upon the pleadings, the plaintiff is requesting that the court permit discovery in an action that has already been filed and is in the process of discovery.   The application states that the plaintiff is applying “to permit the applicants to serve Interrogatories and Requests for Production upon the non-party witness USAA ․ and if necessary take the oral statement of a representative.”   The purpose enunciated in this application has no connection to the facts of the Palma legal action but is an attempt to locate a witness.   Such a purpose does not comport with the basis for an application for a bill of discovery.

The plaintiff in this action recognizes that the defendant is not a party to the pending legal action and will not be a party to the pending legal action.   Therefore, no matter what information they would be able to secure, it would have no bearing on a legal action against USAA. There is a complete failure by the plaintiff to demonstrate that the information sought that is, the address, was material and necessary to the action against the other named defendants.   The plaintiff is requesting information from an insurance provider for an action of which they have no interest.   This court does not have the authority to order discovery, statements or other discovery methods from a defendant who is a non-party and to whom there is no cause of action alleged or anticipated.   There is no probable cause for a potential cause of action against USAA.

The plaintiff has not alleged in the application nor satisfied the court that it does not have an adequate alternative remedy to obtain the information concerning the address of Ruth Hochman–Sohn.   Without this showing the application is insufficient.

Based upon the above argument, the application is clearly insufficient and therefore, the court need not address the argument as to the protection of statutory confidential information.

The Motion to Strike the November 26, 2012 Joint Application for Bill of Discovery is Granted.

THE COURT

Brazzel–Massaro, J.

Brazzel–Massaro, Barbara, J.