Lynx Services has filed a motion in the U.S. Western District Court of Pennsylvania to quash a subpoena served on the company by Safelite Group and Safelite Solutions involving the Connecticut lawsuit over the state’s new anti-steering law. “The subpoena demands the production of documents that go to the very heart of Lynx’s business operations,” according to court documents filed by Lynx.
“Safelite is Lynx’s primary competitor in the auto glass claims administration business,” Lynx’s attorney writes. “However, there is a significant difference between the business operations of Safelite and Lynx. In addition to providing claims management services, Safelite also owns a substantial number of auto glass shops. In fact, according to the complaint Safelite filed in the underlying lawsuit, Safelite is the largest vehicle glass repair and replacement service organization in the United States, with over 4,000 technicians serving more than 4.5 million customers each year.”
On or about July 22, 2014, Safelite served a subpoena to produce documents on Lynx in Pittsburgh, Pa.
“The Safelite subpoena instructs Lynx to produce documents showing (a) the substance of Lynx’s communications with policyholders, including all scripts or similar materials; (b) when and how Lynx provides names of auto glass repair shops to policyholders; (c) Lynx’s contractual agreements or other relationships with auto glass repair shops in Connecticut; (d) the total number of auto glass claims processed for policyholders in Connecticut to whom Lynx provided claims administration services and the total number of policyholders in Connecticut covered by insurers to whom Lynx provides claims administration services; (e) documents concerning the efforts to enact PA 13-67 and the expected or intended benefits of the act; and (f) any complaints, investigations or inquires related to steering or failure to honor customer choice,” according to Lynx’s attorney.
“[T]here is no connection between any of the requested documents and the claims at issue in the Connecticut Lawsuit, which relate solely to a statute that does not even apply to Lynx,” the company’s attorney claims.
“[S]afelite’s requests are not a good-faith effort calculated to lead the discovery of relevant evidence, and instead resemble an improper attempt to engage in a fishing expedition into Lynx’s sensitive and conditional information,” Lynx’s attorney argues.
In response, Judge Mark Hornak issued an order deferring ruling on the motion to quash, asking Lynx to file an amended motion “demonstrating why this judicial district is the proper district for disposition of this motion, in that neither the subpoena nor the motion to quash appear to facially state that this is the judicial district in which compliance is to occur.
“The obligation to comply with the subpoena at issue is held in abeyance pending this court’s disposition of the motion to quash unless otherwise ordered by this court or the court in which the underlying action is pending,” he continued.
To read the court papers, including a copy of the subpoena Safelite served on Lynx, click here.