Auto Glass Inspection Services Inc. (AGIS) urged the Court to grant an order of protection in relating to Auto Glass America, LLC’s (AGA) notices of deposition Duces Tecum. A Duces Tecum is a type of subpoena that requires a witness to produce a document relevant to a lawsuit. This is yet another step in the ongoing lawsuit between Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Allstate Indemnity Company and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company (collectively Allstate) and defendants AGA and its owner, Charles Isaly. AGA requested a court summons ordering the recipient (AGIS) to produce relevant documents for use at trial, according to court filings.
Earlier this month the Court denied AGIS’s order of protection request, including a motion to reject a non-party Subpoena Deposition Duces Tecum filed by Allstate.
“Auto Glass Inspection Services, Inc., which is not a party to this action, filed a motion for protective order relating to Defendant Auto Glass America, LLC’s notices of deposition Duces Tecum,” a portion of the court order reads.
The presiding judge noted the certification is “vague and ambiguous” as to whether AGIS’s counsel just attempted to confer but was unable to actually speak with AGA’s counsel (via phone or in person), or if AGIS’s counsel was able to speak with AGA’s counsel and they attempted to resolve the matter, but were unable to reach agreement on the motion.
“Given the lack of clarity, the Court finds that AGIS has not complied with Local Rule 3.01(g) and the Case Management and Scheduling Order. This is the second time counsel for AGIS has not complied with Local Rule 3.01(g),” a portion of the order reads.
According to the Court’s order, it directed AGIS to file an amended Local Rule 3.01(g) certification detailing the date and method its counsel conferred with AGA’s counsel about the motion and whether it is “opposed” or “unopposed.”
The lawsuit began with Allstate’s complaint alleging that both AGA and Isaly pressured its insureds into hiring them for windshield replacements, while obtaining assignment of benefits (AOBs). The lawsuit began to heat up, as AGA and Isaly responded to Allstate’s emergency motion 24 hours before the presiding judge issued an order. To which AGA and Isaly filed another motion against Allstate. Shortly after mediation was scheduled.
The insurance company previously urged the court to deny AGA and Isaly’s motion to compel Allstate to provide its pricing agreements. Allstate cited confidentiality as its reason for not providing its pricing agreements. However the presiding judge ordered the insurance company to produce its pricing agreements.
From there AGA and Isaly responded to Allstate’s emergency protective order. The presidingjudge then issued an order regarding the emergency motion. Last week Allstate requested additional time to meet with the defendants for mediation, to which the judge granted parts and dismissed parts. Ultimately the Court extended the mediation deadline. Following the mediation extension, Allstate filed an unopposed motion that requested additional time for the insurance company to respond to the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Allstate then asked the court for a dismissal on AGA and Isaly’s motion to compel “computations of each category of damages” for each plaintiff, citing that the motion was frivolous. The court decided to discharge all of defense attorney Michael Laurato’s show cause orders. New dates, along with a virtual mediation were scheduled at the beginning of May, but the mediator selected filed a notice of cancellation. In the middle of May 2020, AGIS objected to its subpoena from Allstate, which lead to subsequent motions requesting an order of protection.
Look to a future edition of glassBYTEs for continued coverage of this suit.