Steil v. Humana Kansas City, Inc.

Steil v. Humana Kansas City, Inc.

Opinion

 [*443] MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (doc. 75). Defendant moves for a protective order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1). It seeks to prevent plaintiff from taking depositions as requested by his Rule 30(b)(6) Notice. Defendant contends the notice does not identify a subject matter for examination with "reasonable particularity." Defendant argues that plaintiff's requests cause annoyance, oppression, undue burden and expense by seeking examination on matters irrelevant to any legal or factual issue designated in the pretrial order. For the reasons stated below, defendant's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

Factual Background

Keith Steil ("Plaintiff") brought this insurance contract action against [**2]  Humana Kansas City ("Defendant") to determine whether he is entitled to benefits under group policy E9387. Plaintiff is seeking Blood Brain Barrier Disruption ("BBBD") treatment. Defendant contends such treatment is not covered by its group policy E9387.

 [*444]  On August 15, 2000, Plaintiff filed a Rule 30(b)(6) Notice to Take Deposition via facsimile for a deposition to be taken on August 22, 2000. Plaintiff seeks to take the deposition of a corporate representative designated by Defendant to testify regarding the following:

1. The corporate structure of defendant corporation, and corporations or business entities named or doing business as: Humana Health Plans, Inc., Humana Health Plans, Humana Health Care Plans, Inc., Humana Insurance Company, Inc., and Humana, Inc., or corporations of similar names.

2. The Group Health Insurance Plan issued to plaintiff through his employment with Xerox, Inc., believed to be numbered E9387.

2. (sic) Group health insurance plans, or Large Group Health Insurance Plans issued by any one of the companies identified in paragraph 1.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.