AssuredPartners of California Insurance Services LLC v. Mary Pahl, et al.

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 AssuredPartners of California Insurance No. CV-25-00693-TUC-RM Services LLC, 10 ORDER Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 Mary Pahl, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Expedited Motion to Compel Defendants to 16 Respond to written discovery requests. (Doc. 29.) On March 10, 2026, a hearing was held 17 before the Court regarding the pending Motion,1 and the Court took the Motion under 18 advisement. For the following reasons, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the 19 Motion. 20 I. Background 21 Plaintiff initiated this action on December 15, 2025, alleging that Defendant Mary 22 Pahl—Plaintiff’s former employee—and Defendant Liberty Company Insurance Brokers 23 LLC (“Liberty”)—Ms. Pahl’s new employer—acted in concert to breach a Restrictive 24 Covenants Agreement entered into between Plaintiff and Ms. Pahl, and to misappropriate 25 1 Also addressed at the March 10, 2026 hearing were Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Subpoena Responses from non-parties Raymond Clem and Jenna Farrell (Doc. 25), and 26 Motion to Compel Subpoena Responses from several of Plaintiff’s former clients (Doc. 30). Since a motion to compel compliance with a subpoena must be filed in the “district 27 where compliance is required,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(d)(2)(B)(i), and the relevant subpoenas do not identify the District of Arizona as the district where compliance is required, the 28 Motion to Compel Subpoena Responses was held in abeyance, and the Motion to Compel Subpoena Responses from several of Plaintiff’s former clients was withdrawn. (Doc. 42.) 1 Plaintiff’s trade secrets. (See Doc. 1.) Plaintiff brings claims against Ms. Pahl and Liberty 2 separately, as well as claims asserted against both. (See Doc. 1.) The claims asserted against 3 Ms. Pahl alone include breach of contract and breach of the duty of loyalty. (Id. at 14, 16.) 4 The claims asserted against Liberty alone include tortious interference with contractual 5 relations, and aiding and abetting a breach of the duty of loyalty. (Id. at 15, 17.) The claims 6 asserted against both Ms. Pahl and Liberty include unjust enrichment, trade secret 7 misappropriation under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, and trade secret 8 misappropriation under the Arizona Uniform Trade Secret Act. (Id. at 15, 17, 19.) 9 At the same time it initiated this action, Plaintiff filed a separate action in the Central 10 District of California bringing similar allegations against Liberty and other former 11 employees of Plaintiff, Jenna Farrell and Raymond Clem. (See AssuredPartners v. Clem, 12 et. al., C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-11856-JAK-AGR). Jenna Farrell and Raymond Clem are 13 described by Plaintiff as having been Ms. Pahl’s “direct co-workers” during the time Ms. 14 Pahl was employed by Plaintiff. (Doc. 25 at 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Ms. Pahl, Clem, and 15 Farrell all departed in the same two-week period, taking similar measures to preserve 16 information learned from Plaintiff’s business and tightly coordinating their exit from 17 Plaintiff’s employ. (Doc. 1 at 2.) 18 Plaintiff sought a preliminary injunction in the above-captioned matter restraining 19 Defendants from possessing information protected by the Restrictive Covenants 20 Agreement or information that could be considered a trade secret, and restraining Ms. Pahl 21 from providing insurance services to the clients deemed off-limits by the Restrictive 22 Covenants Agreement. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff further sought leave to conduct expedited 23 discovery of information relevant to its Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 8.) On 24 January 26, 2026, this Court denied without prejudice Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary 25 Injunction, granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Expedited Discovery, and set a schedule for both 26 expedited discovery and briefing on a refiled Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 22.) 27 The disputes described in the pending Motion to Compel arise from the expedited 28 discovery the Court granted leave to conduct in the above-captioned case. (See Doc. 29.) 1 Plaintiff explains that it has submitted five requests for production and five interrogatories 2 to each Defendant as authorized by the Court’s January 26, 2026 Order. (Doc. 29 at 4.) 3 During the hearing before the Court on March 10, 2026, the parties agreed that the only 4 remaining disputes concern the proper scope of Interrogatory No. 5 to Liberty and Requests 5 for Production Nos. 1-3 to Liberty. Plaintiff explains that it willingly narrowed its requests 6 and interrogatories in response to Defendants’ objections, and yet still could not obtain the 7 cooperation of Defendants. (Id. at 5.) 8 II. Discussion 9 Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have improperly refused to respond to all or parts 10 of the contested requests on the basis that they concern the actions of nonparties Clem and 11 Farrell, and that those nonparties are irrelevant to this case. (Doc. 29 at 4.) Plaintiff further 12 argues that Defendants have inappropriately cited the pending litigation in the Central 13 District of California against Clem and Farrell as a basis upon which Defendants may 14 refuse to produce materials relating to Clem and Farrell in this action. (Id. at 6-7.) 15 Defendants respond that communications and documents relating to any employee other 16 than Ms. Pahl are outside the scope of the claims in this case. (Doc. 31 at 7-9.) Defendants 17 further explain that to the extent the Motion seeks to expand the scope of communications 18 by Ms. Pahl encompassed within request No. 3, this dispute has been resolved by the 19 parties. (Id. at 9.) 20 Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party “may obtain discovery 21 regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and 22 proportional to the needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). In considering whether 23 discovery is proportional to the needs of the case, the court must consider “the importance 24 of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access 25 to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving 26 the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its 27 likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). 28 In the context of discovery, relevant information “has been construed broadly to 1 encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could 2 bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case.” In re Williams-Sonoma, 947 F.3d 535, 539 3 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978)). 4 Discovery matters are committed to the discretion of the district court, and a district court 5 “has wide latitude in controlling discovery.” Pizzuto v. Tewalt, 136 F.4th 855, 867 (9th Cir. 6 2025) (citing White v. City of San Diego, 605 F.2d 455 (9th Cir. 1979)). 7 In this case, the only discovery presently authorized is that which is “limited to the 8 issues relevant to Plaintiff’s forthcoming Motion for Preliminary Injunction.” (Doc. 22 at 9 9.) Typically, it is not the responsibility of a court to rewrite overbroad discovery requests. 10 Pandora Media, LLC v. Spoken Giants, LLC, No. 2:23-MC-149-MCS-MAR, 2023 WL 11 9421132 at *5 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2023). However, a court may narrow or modify discovery 12 requests where doing so appears to be in the interest of judicial economy. See id. 13 Plaintiff’s narrowed version2 of interrogatory No. 5 to Liberty reads as follows: 14 “Identify only communications between Liberty and Farrell and/or Clem that relate to Pahl 15 or the transition of Restricted Client accounts from AssuredPartners to Liberty.” (Doc. 29 16 at 4.) Plaintiff’s narrowed version of request for production No. 1 to Liberty reads “Produce 17 all documents belonging to or originating from AssuredPartners that came into Liberty’s 18 possession from Pahl, Clem, or Farrell[.]” (Id. at 4-5.) Plaintiff’s narrowed version of 19 request for production No. 2 to Liberty reads “Produce all communications with Pahl, 20 Clem, and Farrell from December 1, 2024, through their first date of their employment 21 with Liberty.” (Id. at 5.) Finally, Plaintiff’s narrowed version of request for production No. 22 3 to Liberty reads “Produce all communications with any Restricted Client after May 1, 23 2025, (i) discussing, transmitting, or attaching a broker of record letter; (ii) soliciting or 24 transitioning such Restricted Client’s business from [Plaintiff] to Liberty; (iii) referencing 25 this litigation, not all claims underlying it; or (iv) related to the execution of any declaration 26 or affidavit for litigation.” (Id.) 27 2 Since Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to Respond to written discovery requests asks only that the Court order compliance with the narrowed versions of Plaintiff’s written 28 discovery requests, it is those narrowed versions, and not the originals, that the Court will address herein. 1 While Plaintiff alleges coordinated action between Ms. Pahl, Clem, Farrell, and 2 Liberty, the liability of Clem and Farrell is not before this Court. Insofar as Plaintiff alleges 3 that the actions of Liberty itself give rise to the company’s liability, Plaintiff’s allegations 4 in its Complaint relate to what Liberty did in coordination with Ms. Pahl, not Clem and 5 Farrell.3 Therefore, although the actions of Clem and Farrell are relevant to the extent they 6 share a factual nexus with the claims asserted here against Ms. Pahl, the actions of Clem 7 and Farrell alone, lacking any connection to Ms. Pahl, do not bear on “any party’s claim or 8 defense,” as required by Rule 26. 9 Bearing these observations in mind, the Court concludes that interrogatory No. 5 to 10 Liberty is permissible with one adjustment; for clarity, the Court will amend this request 11 to require “communications between Liberty and Farrell and/or Clem that mention Pahl or 12 the transition of Restricted Client accounts . . . .” Though this interrogatory contemplates 13 disclosure of communications to which Ms. Pahl was not a party, it is permissible with the 14 foregoing amendment because communications in which Ms. Pahl was mentioned may 15 shed light on her actions, and the term “Restricted Client” as used in Plaintiff’s discovery 16 requests has the meaning set forth in the Restricted Covenants Agreement between Plaintiff 17 and Ms. Pahl specifically. (Doc. 29-1 at 5.) 18 Request for production No. 1 to Liberty, however, must be amended to encompass 19 only documents belonging to or originating from Plaintiff that came into Liberty’s 20 possession from Pahl. As discussed above, Clem and Farrell are not parties to this action. 21 Even if Clem, Farrell, and Pahl worked together as Plaintiff describes, the allegations in 22 Plaintiff’s Complaint giving rise to the claims in this matter are centered around the actions 23 of Pahl and Liberty. (See Doc. 1.) Whether Clem or Farrell wrongfully handed documents 24 over to Liberty is not an issue before this Court. Request for production No. 2 is overbroad 25 3 The Court is mindful that there are two overlapping claims against Liberty asserted in this action and the action currently pending in the Central District of California. These include 26 a violation of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, and aiding and abetting a breach of the duty of loyalty. (Doc. 1; AssuredPartners v. Clem, et. al., C.D. Cal. 2:25-cv-11856-JAK- 27 AGR, Doc. 1.) As discussed above, the allegations against Liberty in this case arise from its actions taken in coordination with Ms. Pahl, and the allegations against Liberty in the 28 Central District of California case arise from its actions taken in coordination with Clem, Farrell, and other former employees of Plaintiff. 1 for the same reason, and the Court will therefore modify it to require “communications 2 with Pahl, and communications between Clem and/or Farrell that mention Pahl, from 3 December 1, 2024, through their first date of their employment with Liberty.” 4 Finally, request for production No. 3 is acceptable in its current form because, as 5 discussed above, Plaintiff states that the term “Restricted Client” has the meaning set forth 6 in the Restricted Covenants Agreement between Plaintiff and Ms. Pahl. (Doc. 29-1 at 5.) 7 Therefore, this request for production will uncover communications with clients that Ms. 8 Pahl herself was under contractual obligation to limit contact with after departing 9 Plaintiff’s employ. Since Plaintiff asserts a claim for tortious interference with contractual 10 relations claim against Liberty, Liberty’s communications with such clients is clearly 11 relevant. 12 III. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs 13 If a motion for an order compelling discovery is granted in part and denied in part, 14 “the court may . . . apportion the reasonable expenses for the motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 37(a)(5)(C). Here, the Court will exercise the discretion afforded to it under Fed. R. Civ. 16 P. 37(a)(5)(C) and require the parties to bear their own fees and costs related to bringing 17 the Motion to Compel Defendants to Respond, because both the Motion and Defendants’ 18 objections to it appear to be substantially justified and asserted in good faith. 19 Accordingly, 20 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Defendants to Respond to 21 written discovery requests (Doc. 29) is granted in part and denied in part as follows. 22 a. Liberty must answer interrogatory No. 5 in the following amended form: 23 Identify only communications between Liberty and Farrell and/or Clem 24 that mention Pahl or the transition of Restricted Client accounts from 25 AssuredPartners to Liberty. 26 b. Liberty must answer request for production No. 1 in the following 27 amended form: Produce all documents belonging to or originating from 28 AssuredPartners that came into Liberty’s possession from Pahl. 1 c. Liberty must answer request for production No. 2 in the following 2 amended form: Produce all communications with Pahl, and 3 communications between Clem and/or Farrell that mention Pahl, from 4 December 1, 2024, through their first date of their employment with 5 Liberty. 6 d. Liberty must answer request for production No. 3 in the narrowed form 7 proposed by Plaintiff: Produce all communications with any Restricted 8 Client after May 1, 2025, (4) discussing, transmitting, or attaching a 9 broker of record letter; (11) soliciting or transitioning such Restricted 10 Client’s business from AssuredPartners to Liberty; (i11) referencing this 11 litigation, not all claims underlying it; or (iv) related to the execution of 12 any declaration or affidavit for litigation. 13 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall produce the materials responsive to the requests set forth above by March 18, 2026. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall bear their own costs and fees. 16 Dated this 13th day of March, 2026. 17 18 ff Honorable Rostsiary Mgtquez 21 United States District □□□□□ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _7-