IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

WESTERN DIVISION

THE TRAVELERS PROPERTY )CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY )

Plaintiff, ) Case No: 12 C 02386)

vs. )) District Judge Frederick J. Kapala

ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS )Defendants. ) Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney

)))

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the Court are three motions: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Rule

30(b)(6) Deposition Notices or, In the Alternative, For a Protective Order Limiting the Notices;

(2) Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Subpoena or, In the Alternative, For a Protective

Order; and (3) Defendant’s Motion to Compel Discovery. For the reasons stated below,

Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notices is granted in part and

denied in part, Defendant’s Motion to Compel is granted in part and denied in part, and since

neither party dealt with Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Subpoena, or In the Alternative,

For a Protective Order, the Court assumes the Motion is withdrawn without prejudice.

Background

This case involves a subrogation suit brought by Plaintiff, The Travelers Property

Casualty Insurance Company (“Plaintiff or Travelers”), as subrogee of its insured, Kent and

Kimberly Rouse (“Rouses”), against Defendant, Electrolux Home Products (“Defendant or

Electrolux”), based on allegations of an alleged defect in an Electrolux clothes dryer that caused

a fire in the Rouses’ home.

1

Case: 1:12-cv-02386 Document #: 46 Filed: 04/02/13 of 10 PageID #:438

The parties’ discovery dispute centers around Defendant’s list of topics contained in its

30(b)(6) Deposition Notice. Electrolux’s 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice originally contained 25

topics. Of the original 25 topics, only topics 21 and 22 were agreed to by Travelers. After

communications between the parties regarding the remaining 23 disputed topics, Plaintiff filed

its Motion to Quash Defendant's 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice. On January 23, 2013, Electrolux

narrowed the topics and sent Travelers a revised list of 15 topics. On January 28, 2013,

Electrolux filed its Motion to Compel Discovery of the revised list of 15 topics. On January 24,

2013, Electrolux served a deposition subpoena upon John Vesey, requesting that Mr. Vesey

appear on February 6, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. On January 28, 2013, Travelers filed its Motion to

Quash Electrolux’s subpoena of Mr. Vesey.

After a Discovery hearing on January 30, 2013, the parties were instructed by the Court

to hold a Local Rule 37.2 conference by February 20, 2013, and to file a report of the conference

with the Court by February 27, 2013. In the parties report, 14 of the 15 topics were organized

into five categories:

(1) Travelers’ underwriting and subrogation practices, to the extent they relate to Electrolux-manufactured dryers; (Topics 1 and 15)

(2) Travelers’ testing of dryers that were either (a) manufactured by Electrolux, or (b) manufactured by another entity, to the extent those dryers differ from the Electrolux dryers in a manner believed to be relevant to a claimed defect; (Topics 2 and 3)

(3) Travelers’ attendance at conferences where Electrolux fires were discussed, including a specific conference where Electrolux understands Electrolux dryer fires to have been a specific subject of a formal presentation; (Topic 4)

(4) Travelers’ website and blog postings where Travelers advised homeowners to clean and maintaining their clothes dryers and venting; and (Topics 5—12)

2


(5) Travelers’ training of the party that handled the investigation of the claim on Travelers’ behalf. (Topic 14)

The Court will rule on all 14 topics individually.

Discussion

I. Travelers’ underwriting and subrogation practices, to the extent they relateto Electrolux-manufactured dryers.

Travelers objects to Category 1 based on relevancy. Category 1 includes the following

topics:

(1) Travelers’ underwriting and subrogation practices and procedures, to the extentsuch practices and procedures refer to, reflect, or otherwise relate to Electrolux-manufactured dryers, including, by way of example but not limitation, the extentto which any belief on Travelers’ part that Electrolux-manufactured dryers(including the dryer at issue in this litigation) are inherently defective bears onTravelers’ decisions regarding whether to accept risk, or the manner in whichTravelers values and prices such risk given such beliefs, as well as the proceduresemployed upon learning that a fire involved an Electrolux-manufacture dryer; and

(15) The timing of Travelers’ decision to pursue subrogation in this matter, theindividuals that participated in the decision, and any policies, procedures, orclaim handling guidelines triggered by Travelers’ decision.

Travelers argues that its conduct is irrelevant to this action. Rule 26(b)(1) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure sets the scope and limits on discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Rule

26(b)(1) states that “[u]nless otherwise limited by court order . . . [p]arties may obtain discovery

regarding any non-privileged matter, that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense.” Id.

Specifically, Travelers asserts that any information regarding its underwriting and

subrogation practices are not relevant because it cannot be offered as evidence by the Defendant

on the issue of its affirmative defenses. In doing so, Travelers emphasizes that it is merely a

nominal plaintiff and its rights are entirely derivative. Rule 26(b)(1) states “[T]he court may

order discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action. Relevant

information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead

3


to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). Therefore, the issue before the

court is whether Travelers’ underwriting and subrogation practices, to the extent they

specifically relate to Electrolux-manufactured dryers, appear reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence. The Court finds that Travelers’ underwriting practices could,

but its subrogation practices are too remote.

Travelers’ underwriting practices are a logical place where relevant information may be

found. If Travelers asks its insured if they use an Electrolux-manufactured dryer, or if Travelers

excludes coverage or requires increased premiums for Electrolux-manufactured dryers, the

reasons for those decisions could lead to discoverable information.

With regard to Travelers’ subrogation practices, Electrolux seeks testimony concerning

“the procedures employed upon learning that a fire involved an Electrolux-manufactured dryer”

and “[t]he timing of Travelers’ decision to pursue subrogation in this matter, the individuals that

participated in the decision, and any policies, procedures, or claim-handling guidelines triggered

by Travelers’ decision.”

“Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) empowers a court to limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it

determines that the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit or

that it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.” See, Fed R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). After

balancing the likely benefit of questions regarding Travelers’ subrogation practices against its

burden of production, the Court finds the burden outweighs the potential benefits.

In summation, the Court finds that Electrolux may not question Travelers regarding topic

15. Further, the Court has limited discovery relating to topic 1 to the following: Travelers’

underwriting practices and procedures, to the extent such practices and procedures specifically

refer to Electrolux-manufactured dryers.

4


II. Travelers’ testing of dryers that were either (a) manufactured by Electrolux, or (b) manufactured by another entity, to the extent those dryers differ from the Electrolux dryers in a manner believed to be relevant to a claimed defect.

Category II encompasses the following topics:

(2) Travelers’ analysis, including testing, of clothes dryers manufactured byElectrolux; and

(3) Travelers’ testing of clothes dryers manufactured by manufacturers other thanElectrolux, to the extent the Electrolux-manufactured dryers differ from thosemanufactured by other manufacturers in a manner that Travelers believes to bearon any alleged defect in Electrolux-manufactured dryers.

Travelers argues that any testing of dryers done by a non-testifying expert would be

protected under a consulting expert privilege. Travelers also argues that any testing done by an

expert witness would be produced during expert discovery. “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

26(b)(4)(B) prohibits parties from seeking: facts known or opinions held by an expert who has

been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or preparation

for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial.” Ludwig v. Pilkington N. Am.,

Inc., 03 C 1086, 2003 WL 22242224 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2003).

In determining whether a non-testifying expert was retained in anticipation of litigation,

courts analyze the total factual situation of the particular case. McNally Tunneling Corp., v. City

of Evanston, No. 00 C 6979, 2002 WL 59115, AT *2 (N.D. Ill. July 25, 2001). Courts do not

require a lawsuit to actually be filed at the time the expert was retained. Canal Barge Co. v.

Commonwealth Edison Co., No. 98 C 0509, 2001 WL 845468, *1 (N.D. Ill. July 25, 2001).

Rather, the proper inquiry is whether in light of the nature of the documents and the factual

situation in the particular case, the documents can be fairly said to have been prepared or

obtained because of the prospect of litigation. Binks Mfg. Co. v. National Presto Indus., Inc., 709

5


F. 2d 1109, 1118--19 (7th Cir. 1983) (citing 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure

2024 (2d ed. 1994)).

Additionally, under Rule 26(b)(5)(A), “[w]hen a party withholds information otherwise

discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged . . . the party must: (1) expressly

make the claim; and (2) describe the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible

things not produced or disclosed . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A). Further, the claim of privilege

must be made and sustained on a question-by-question or document-by-document basis; a

blanket claim of privilege is unacceptable. United States v. First State Bank, 691 F.2d 332, 335

(7th Cir.1982). The scope of the privilege should be “strictly confined within the narrowest

possible limits.” United States v. Lawless, 709 F.2d 485, 487 (7th Cir. 1983) citing, Wigmore,

Evidence 2291 (McNaughton rev. 1961); United States v. Goldfarb, 328 F. 2d 280 (6th Cir.),

cert. denied, 377 U.S. 976, 84 S. Ct. 1883, 12 L. Ed. 2d 746 (1946); In re Shapiro, 381 F.Supp.

21 (N.D. Ill. 1974).

Consequently, if Travelers encounters questions regarding this topic that it feels are

protected by privilege, it must demonstrate the privilege on a question-by-question basis.

Travelers has not done so. As a result, Electrolux is entitled to question Travelers with regards to

topics 2 and 3. However, the Court limits the scope of questions regarding these topics to the last

five years.

III. Travelers’ attendance at conferences where Electrolux fires were discussed, including a specific conference where Electrolux understands Electrolux dryers to have been a specific subject of a formal presentation.

The next area of contention between the parties revolves around Travelers’ attendance at

various conferences where Electrolux-manufactured dryers may have been discussed.

Specifically, Electrolux seeks discovery on the following topic:

6


(4) The attendance of any of Travelers’ employees, former employees, agents,contractors, or subcontractors in any conference, seminar, or meeting from 2002to the present in which Electrolux clothes dryer fires were discussed, including,but not limited to, meetings held by the National Association of SubrogationLawyers and any internal seminars or meetings.

Travelers argues that this topic is not relevant and is overly broad and unduly

burdensome. In regards to relevancy, it is hard to imagine how questions regarding attendance of

Travelers employees at meetings discussing Electrolux dryer fires would be reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Assuming arguendo, that this topic

met the standard for relevance, “Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) empowers a court to limit the frequency or

extent of discovery if it determines that the burden or expense of the proposed discovery

outweighs its likely benefit or that it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative. The application

of Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) involves a highly discretionary determination based upon an assessment

of a number of competing considerations.” Sommerfield v. City of Chicago, 613 F. Supp. 2d

1004, 1017 (N.D. Ill. 2009) objections overruled, 06 C 3132, 2010 WL 780390 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3,

2010).

The scope of Category 3 spans more than 10 years and includes all “employees, former

employees, agents, contractors, or sub-contractors in any conference, seminar, or meeting . . .”

In finding a corporate representative to testify to this topic, Travelers will likely have to spend a

significant amount of time going through various employee and corporate records. This burden

outweighs the likely benefit of this discovery. Thus, the Court finds that Electrolux is not entitled

to question Travelers regarding this topic.

7


IV. Travelers' website and blog postings where Travelers advises homeowners toclean and maintain their clothes dryers and venting.

The next topic encompasses seven specific websites (Topics 5—11) and a catchall topic

(Topic 12) regarding collections of information prepared by Travelers between 2002 to the

present regarding dryer fires, clothes dryer maintenance, and clothes dryer cleaning. Travelers

argues that these websites and blog postings are not relevant nor are they reasonably calculated

to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, again emphasizing that its conduct is not at issue

in this case. The Court disagrees.

Whether the fire was caused by an inherent defect in the dryer or the comparative

negligence of the Rouses is one of the central issues in this case. Information prepared by

Travelers regarding proper dryer maintenance, regardless of whether the Rouses actually viewed

the website, goes directly to the claims and defenses in this case and is thus reasonably

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. As a result, the Court finds Electrolux

is entitled to question Travelers regarding topics 5—11. The Court will however limit the inquiry

to the two years before the fire.

Topic 12 is another story. Topic 12 seeks “[a]ny other articles, blogs, letters, audio

recordings, video recordings, or any other documents regarding clothes dryer fires, clothes dryer

maintenance, and clothes dryer cleaning prepared by Travelers from 2002 to the present,

including all drafts and revisions.” As stated above, the Court may limit the frequency or extent

of discovery if it determines that the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its

likely benefit. See, Fed R. Civ. P 26(b)(2)(C). Here, the Court finds the burden of this topic

outweighs the likely benefit of this discovery. As a result, Electrolux may not question Travelers

regarding topic 12.

8


V. Travelers' training of the party that handled the investigation of the claim onTravelers' behalf.

The last category of contention revolves around “[t]he training of the persons handling

the adjustment and investigation of this claim on Travelers’ behalf or on behalf of a related

Travelers’ company.” (Topic 14).

It should be noted that Travelers has already agreed to produce its Claims adjuster.

Therefore, the only issue for the Court to decide is whether Electrolux is entitled to question

Travelers’ 30(b)(6) witness regarding Travelers’ training of the persons that handled the

investigation of the claim.

Electrolux argues that it simply wishes to probe how the investigators were trained,

presuming that theses persons told Travelers that the dryer was defective and again, presuming

that the investigators’ recommendation formed the basis for Travelers’ decision to pursue this

claim. The Court fails to see the relevance of the training given to the investigators. As noted

above, Travelers has already agreed to produce the Claims Adjuster for this case. As a result, the

Court finds that the likely benefit of this topic of discovery is outweighed by its burden.

9


Conclusion

For the reasons state above, Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Defendant’s Rule 30(b)(6)

Deposition Notices is granted in part and denied in part and Defendant’s Motion to Compel is

granted in part and denied in part.

ENTER:

__________________________________

P. Michael Mahoney, Magistrate JudgeUnited States District Court

DATE:____April 2, 2013________

10


IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, WESTERN DIVISION

THE TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o KENT AND KIMBERLY ROUSE

Plaintiff,

v.

ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.

Defendant.

Civil No. 1:12-cv-02386 District Judge Frederick J. Kapala Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT’S COMBINED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS

MOTION TO COMPEL AND RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO QUASH

This Combined Memorandum in Support of Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc.’s

(“Electrolux”) Motion to Compel and Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash is made

necessary, by, among other things, Plaintiff Travelers’ Property Casualty Insurance Company

a/s/o Kent and Kimberly Rouse’s (“Plaintiff” or “Travelers”) race to the courthouse to file its

Motion to Quash, to the exclusion, Electrolux respectfully submits, of sufficient efforts to meet

and confer pursuant to Local Rule 37.2. As detailed in a letter attached hereto as Exhibit H,

Electrolux genuinely believed that further discussions were planned, which could have led to

compromise on some or all of the disputed issues, and was in the process of preparing detailed

correspondence to that effect when Plaintiff filed its Motion to Quash. Electrolux’s

correspondence, in fact (which was sent in good faith notwithstanding the Motion to Quash),

narrowed and, in some cases, eliminated, certain of the disputed requests.

In any event, the testimony that Electrolux seeks through its disputed Notice of

Deposition pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 30(b)(6) is well within the scope of permissible discovery,

given the issues to be decided in this case and the exceedingly low threshold for relevance for

Case: 1:12-cv-02386 Document #: 34 Filed: 01/28/13 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:238

- 2 -

discovery under the Federal Rules. Contrary to Plaintiff’s defensive accusations, it is not sought

as part of a proverbial “fishing expedition,” nor is it intended to harass or increase litigation costs

(as if the balance of litigation resources in this matter could be said to favor Electrolux, as

compared to Travelers). However misleadingly Travelers may attempt to characterize the issue,

Electrolux simply seeks information regarding Travelers’ basis for filing this lawsuit and

accusing Electrolux’s product of being inherently defective. This information is eminently

relevant, and would be among the first discovery requested of any plaintiff, in any lawsuit.

Travelers’ efforts to impose a different set of standards because this matter involves subrogation

is entirely without basis, and Travelers should be ordered to produce a witness to testify on all of

the topics in Electrolux’s Notice of Deposition, as modified in its January 23 correspondence.

Factual Background and Statement as to Efforts to Confer

This is, as Travelers described in its Motion, a subrogation suit brought by Travelers, as

subrogee of its insureds, Kent and Kimberly Rouse, against Electrolux, based on what Travelers

alleges to be a defect in an Electrolux clothes dryer that purportedly caused a fire in the Rouses’

home. This is not an unfamiliar fact pattern for these parties, as Travelers has brought numerous

suits of this nature against Electrolux, in jurisdictions all across the country. Travelers seems

intent, however, on leveraging that familiarity into an assembly-line approach to litigating this

case, providing perfunctory discovery responses and attempting to steer this matter towards a

quick settlement, while aggressively resisting any discovery—however basic and reasonable—

that deviates from its plan (or, more likely, budget) for how this case should proceed. This is not

in any way proper, and the Court should not condone it.

By way of procedural summary, Electrolux has gone out of its way to attempt to reach an

agreed resolution as to the areas of dispute, or, at a minimum, to narrow such issues:


- 3 -

• Electrolux served its 30(b)(6) Notice on October 30, 2012. (See Ex. A).

• Travelers’ submitted its Response and Objection to the Notice on November 16, 2012. (See Ex. B).

• The parties worked cooperatively to schedule 30(b)(6) depositions for the week of

January 21, 2013.

• On January 2, 2013 Electrolux counsel Matthew Kramer sent a letter to Robert Spinazzola, counsel for Travelers, discussing, among other things, the nature of Travelers’ objections, and seeking clarification as to whether and to what extent Travelers intended to produce a witness to testify in response to the Notice. (See Ex. C).

• Travelers responded on January 3, confirming that it would produce a witness to testify

as to Topics 21 (Travelers’ Answers to Interrogatories) and 22 (related to the training provided to the person involved in adjustment of the loss in this case), but that it was objecting on the remainder of the Notice on the grounds stated. (See Ex. D).

• Electrolux sent follow-up correspondence on January 7, 2013, outlining in detail why it

believed Electrolux’s noticed 30(b)(6) topics to be proper, and Travelers’ objections to be unfounded. (See Ex. E).

• The Court conducted a telephonic status conference on January 8, 2013, where the parties

indicated they may be approaching an impasse on certain discovery issues and, while committing to continue to work towards a resolution, set January 30, 2013 as the date for presentment of any discovery motions. (Docket No. 30).

• Mr. Kramer and Mr. Spinazzola spoke on the telephone on Friday, January 11, and

agreed that Mr. Spinazzola would send a written summary that attempted to organize by subject the nature of Travelers’ objections, so that the issues in dispute could, at a minimum, be presented in an orderly fashion. On Monday, January 14, 2013, Mr. Kramer sent an e-mail confirming the agreement reached after the January 11 telephone conference, and promising to respond to any such summary in an effort to narrow or eliminate areas of dispute. (See Ex. F).

• Mr. Spinazzola sent an e-mail summary later in the day on January 14. (See Ex. G).

• On January 22, 2013, Mr. Kramer—who, as Mr. Spinazzola was aware, had been

traveling for a deposition during the week of January 14—was in the process of preparing a detailed response to Travelers’ summary, which would, among other things, offer to eliminate certain topics in an effort to compromise and avoid motion practice on the 30(b)(6) Notice, when Travelers filed its Motion to Quash. (Docket No. 31).

• Mr. Kramer sent his detailed correspondence on January 23, offering, as set forth in the

letter, to withdraw certain topics and narrow many of those that remained. Mr. Kramer also offered to continue efforts towards an agreed resolution, notwithstanding Travelers’


- 4 -

Motion to Quash. (See Ex. H). The letter included a revised list of 30(b)(6) topics, which Mr. Kramer intended to be used as the framework for any future meet-and-confer efforts and, absent any success in that regard, this Motion to Compel. The letter also made clear that Electrolux expected that, to the extent documents related to the disputed 30(b)(6) topics had not been produced, that they would be produced prior to the deposition, in view of any agreement that might be reached.

• Mr. Spinazzola and Mr. Kramer spoke again on Thursday, January 24, and Mr.

Spinazzola indicated that Travelers was preparing a counter-proposal in response to Mr. Kramer’s most-recent correspondence. Mr. Kramer then sent a follow-up e-mail, indicating a willingness to consider anything that might be proposed, but making clear that this Motion would be filed in order to preserve Electrolux’s rights. (See Ex. I). Nor further agreement was reached, though the parties have agreed to continue the discussion in advance of the hearing on January 30. (See Ex. J).

The dispute over Electrolux’s modified topics for Travelers’ 30(b)(6) Deposition is ripe for

consideration, then, as part of this Motion.

Argument

As noted above, any suggestion that Electrolux seeks to accomplish anything through the

disputed discovery requests other than explore legitimate areas of inquiry, including, principally,

Plaintiff’s basis for filing this Complaint, as well as documented instances of Plaintiff espousing

the position on which Electrolux bases its principal defense, is a misleading distraction, and the

Court should disregard it. All of the discovery at issue here bears directly on the claims and

defenses at issue in this case, which include, primarily, whether the Electrolux-manufactured

dryer was defective and caused the damages claimed, on the one hand, or whether it was the

Rouses’ negligent use, maintenance, and operation of the dryer that led to the fire, on the other.

I. The Standards For Relevance In Discovery Are Exceedingly Permissive.

Though Travelers has asserted a number of stock objections, Electrolux understands

almost all of them to have been resolved by agreement (two minor areas of dispute are addressed

below in Section IV), reducing this, almost exclusively, to a dispute simply over the relevance of

the topics in Electrolux’s 30(b)(6) Notice. And, in that regard, Travelers faces a daunting task in


- 5 -

pursuing an order to effectively bar the taking of a 30(b)(6) deposition. As Travelers well

knows, standards for relevance in discovery are extraordinarily broad. See, e.g., Minch v. City of

Chicago, 213 F.R.D. 526, 527 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (“The test for relevancy under the Federal Rules

is extremely broad and permissive.”) “Relevant material may ‘encompass any matter that bears

on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in

the case.’” Id. Courts have consistently noted that “[a] request for discovery ‘should be

considered relevant if there is any possibility that the information sought may be relevant to the

subject matter of the action.’” Meyer v. Southern Pac. Lines, 199 F.R.D. 610, 611-12 (N.D. Ill.

2001) (citations omitted). And, critically, the burden is on Travelers, as the objecting party, to

show why discovery should not be permitted as to the disputed topics. Id. at 612.

II. Subrogation Requires No Different Analysis As To Relevance.

Much of Travelers’ Motion to Quash is grounded in the misleading assertion that,

because Travelers is a subrogee in this matter, and has merely “stepped into the shoes” of its

insureds, discovery into Travelers’ business practices—even to the very limited and relevant

extent that Electrolux seeks here—is per se improper. This is illogical, and simply without basis.

Indeed, Travelers cites no law supporting this proposition, which is decidedly contrary to the

purpose and intent of discovery under the Federal Rules.

Paying its insureds no doubt confers upon Travelers the right to bring a tort claim against

Electrolux. But that right is not self-executing, nor, of course, is a right the equivalent of an

obligation. Some person or group of people at Travelers concluded that the Rouses’ dryer was

defective (or, more precisely, as described below, that the Rouses’ dryer was plagued by a

widespread inherent defect) and made the decision to exercise the rights that Travelers had

inherited from the Rouses. Electrolux simply seeks discovery into the basis for that decision.


- 6 -

Indeed, Illinois law recognizes that “there is a substantive difference between a

subrogation action” and a direct claim, such that discovery that might be inapplicable in a direct

action would be entirely proper in the subrogation context. Walker v. Ridgeview Const. Co., Inc.,

316 Ill. App. 3d 592, 597-98, 736 N.E.2d 1184, 1188 (1st Dist. 2000). In Walker, in fact, the

court cited prejudice from the inability to take discovery of the subrogated insurer as grounds for

reversing the trial court’s decision to allow a party to amend its complaint after judgment to add

an insurer as the real party in interest. Id. Travelers’ position seems to be that the subrogated

insurer is immaterial, going so far as to accuse Electrolux of “pretend[ing] that Travelers is a

party to the action separate from its capacity as subrogee.” (Docket No. 31 at 7). Under

Travelers’ reasoning, the subrogee could be anyone or no one at all, and the focus should remain

entirely on the Rouses and the dryer they owned. This is simply inconsistent with Illinois

subrogation law, however, which requires, principally, that the subrogated party either bring the

action in its own name or disclose itself as the real party in interest, and verify under oath that the

party is “the actual bona fide subrogee.” Id. (citing 735 ILCS 5/2-403(c)). Illinois law does not

allow subrogees to conceal themselves or their interests because who the subrogee is matters.

Travelers’ efforts to resist discovery simply on the grounds that they are subrogee and this is a

subrogation action are entirely without basis.

III. Travelers Has Alleged A Non-Unique Defect.

Critical to Electrolux’s position with respect to these discovery issues is the seemingly

self-evident point that Travelers believes the Rouse dryer to have suffered from a non-unique

defect, which is to say a purported defect that, assuming it exists, is present in Electrolux-

manufactured dryers other than the one located in the Rouse home. Electrolux does not

understand Travelers to have ever meaningfully argued otherwise, particularly given the nature


- 7 -

of the allegations in the Complaint. In Paragraphs 14 and 21, for example, Travelers lists a

number of claimed grounds for liability under, respectively, strict-liability and negligence

theories, and the Complaint states that “one or more of them” could apply, which by no means

suggests a case-specific analysis. (Docket No. 1 at ¶¶ 14, 21). More explicitly, Travelers alleges

a defect in the design of the dryer, which would, logically, apply to every dryer manufactured

according to that allegedly defective design. (Id. at ¶¶ 14(b), 21(b))). Travelers also attempts to

base liability on a failure-to-warn theory, which, again, relates on its face to a broader universe

of dryer owners, as opposed to the Rouses specifically. (Id. at ¶¶ 14(c), 21(c)).

To be clear, it is not by any means correct to suggest—as Travelers does—that Electrolux

is using its 30(b)(6) Notice to seek discovery about other cases between Travelers and

Electrolux.1 Nor does it mean that Electrolux is using the requested discovery as a means to

conduct an invasive search into Travelers’ business practices generally. Rather, as described in

greater detail below, Electrolux seeks to discover the basis for Travelers’ claim that the Rouses’

dryer suffered from a non-unique defect. It is no more complicated than that. If the Rouses had

sued Travelers in their individual capacities, among the first and most critical subjects of

discovery would be their basis for alleging that the dryer was defective. Who did they talk to

about it? Did they conduct an examination of the dryer? What were the results? Had they heard

anything—either before or after purchasing the dryer—about Electrolux’s dryers being

defective? What did they do in response to that information? The discovery that Electrolux

seeks is simply these same types of questions, applied to the Plaintiff in this case, which just

happens to be a subrogated insurance carrier.

1 The Court should ignore then, the false equivalence that Travelers highlights in its Motion, in discussing Electrolux’s objections to providing information about types of dryers other than the one at issue here.


- 8 -

IV. The Testimony That Electrolux Seeks Is Appropriate And Should Be Ordered.

All of the subjects in Electrolux’s modified Rule 30(b)(6) Notice are proper, and more

than sufficiently tailored to the claims and defenses at issue in this case. Electrolux will address

each of the disputed topics in turn, with reference to their inclusion on Electrolux’s proposed

modified list of topics, included with Electrolux’s January 23 Correspondence. (See Ex. H).

Topic Nos. 1 and 15 – Electrolux-Specific Underwriting And Subrogation Issues

Topic No. 1, as modified, seeks testimony on the following subject:

1. Travelers’ underwriting and subrogation practices and procedures, to the extent such practices and procedures refer to, reflect, or otherwise relate to Electrolux-manufactured dryers, including, by way of example but not limitation, the extent to which any belief on Travelers’ part that Electrolux-manufactured dryers (including the dryer at issue in this litigation) are inherently defective bears on Travelers’ decisions regarding whether to accept risk, or the manner in which Travelers values and prices such risk given such beliefs, as well as the procedures employed upon learning that a fire involved an Electrolux-manufactured dryer.

This, again, is simply an inquiry into Travelers’ basis for alleging an inherent defect in the

Electrolux-manufactured dryer. Electrolux has made clear that it seeks underwriting and

subrogation information only to the extent such information relates to Electrolux-manufactured

dryers, but the parties were still unable to agree.

First, whether and to what extent any belief on Travelers’ part about inherent defects in

Electrolux-manufactured dryers impacts the underwriting process—including the manner in

which Travelers values and prices risk—bears directly on the issue of whether such a defect

existed in the Rouses’ dryer. All that Electrolux seeks through this Topic, in fact, is information

about whether Travelers acts consistently with the allegation that the Rouse dryer suffered from a

non-unique defect that would, by definition, be shared by numerous other Electrolux-

manufactured dryers that Travelers knows to be in use and operation by many of its current and

prospective insureds. “Underwriting” and “subrogation” are simply the areas where this


- 9 -

information would be likely to be revealed in an examination about certain aspects of an

insurer’s business. To give just some examples, does Travelers ask its insureds if they use an

Electrolux-manufactured dryer? If so, does Travelers exclude coverage on that basis? Or

require an increased premium? The answers to all of these questions, and others along those

lines, could certainly make more or less likely the fact of an inherent defect in the Rouses’

Electrolux-manufactured dryer, and they are at least reasonably calculated to lead to the

discovery of admissible evidence on that issue. In that respect, this topic more than readily

satisfies the standard for relevance at this stage of discovery.

The same is true of subrogation practices related to Electrolux, which is addressed in

Topic No. 1, as well as Topic No. 15, which seeks testimony concerning “[t]he timing of

Travelers’ decision to pursue subrogation in this matter, the individuals that participated in the

decision, and any policies, procedures, or claim-handling guidelines triggered by Travelers’

decision.” Electrolux should certainly be entitled to probe how Travelers handles a claim

involving an Electrolux-manufactured dryer (including this claim in particular) given the

apparent belief that those dryers suffer from an inherent defect. How Travelers responds to

learning that a fire occurred in the home of a policyholder that owned an Electrolux-

manufactured dryer would certainly bear on, and lead to further discoverable information about,

the supposed inherent defects. For example, is there a specifically mandated process for

Electrolux-manufactured dryers that differs from those processes applied to dryers manufactured

by other manufacturers? Why or why not, if the defect is not unique to the dryer at issue in a

particular fire? This information could also bear on the analysis of privilege claims. How long,

if at all, does a claim spend in the investigative stage, before anyone could legitimately claim to

have a reasonable apprehension of suit (such that work-product protections could arguably


- 10 -

apply)? Or is there no investigative stage when an Electrolux-manufactured dyer is involved,

and is the defect presumed to exist, such that litigation is supposedly apprehended as soon as the

claim is processed? These are all eminently legitimate lines of inquiry, and Electrolux has gone

out of its way to tailor this request as narrowly as reasonably possible.

Topic Nos. 2 and 3 – Testing of Electrolux Dryers

Topic Nos. 2 and 3 relate to testing that Travelers has performed on Electrolux-

manufactured dryers, as well as those manufactured by other manufacturers, to the extent of their

differences relative to purported defects in the Electrolux-manufactured dryers:

2. Travelers’ analysis, including testing, of clothes dryers manufactured by Electrolux. 3. Travelers’ testing of clothes dryers manufactured by manufacturers other than Electrolux, to the extent the Electrolux-manufactured dryers differ from those manufactured by other manufacturers in a manner that Travelers believes to bear on any alleged defect in Electrolux-manufactured dryers.

As Electrolux made clear in correspondence to Travelers, it does not seek testimony from any

expert that Travelers retained to examine the Rouses’ dryer (though it will depose at a later time,

of course, Travelers’ testifying expert). (See Ex. H at 4). Rather, Electrolux is concerned with

examinations that Travelers has conducted outside of the context of this specific case, the results

of which would certainly bear, to some degree, in either a positive or negative way, on Travelers’

belief that Electrolux-manufactured dryers are inherently defective. Here again, this goes, at a

most fundamental level, to the basis for Travelers’ claim that the dryer is inherently defective.

Has the claim that the Rouses’ dryer is inherently defective been informed, at all, by an

examination of a dryer that was conducted outside of the context of this particular case? If so,

Electrolux should be entitled to probe the basis for that conclusion.


- 11 -

This same reasoning supports questions about examinations of dryers manufactured by

other manufacturers, to the extent the Electrolux-manufactured dryer differs in a way that

Travelers believes to bear on the existence of any alleged defect. This is simply a logical

extension of the previous topic, and the inquiry is again very simple. If Travelers believes that

Electrolux-manufactured dryers are defective because of one or more attributes or features, it is

perfectly legitimate to inquire whether it has examined other dryers to determine whether they

have those same features or attributes.

Topic No. 4 – Conferences and Seminars Where Electrolux Was Discussed

Closely related to the underwriting issues discussed above is Topic No. 4, which seeks

testimony about Travelers’ attendance at conference or seminars where Electrolux is discussed.

4. The attendance of any of Travelers’ employees, former employees, agents, contractors, or subcontractors in any conference, seminar, or meeting from 2002 to the present in which Electrolux clothes dryer fires were discussed, including, but not limited to, meetings held by the National Association of Subrogation Lawyers and any internal seminars or meetings.

Though it is admittedly somewhat implicit in the topic, as opposed to an express premise,

Electrolux does expect evidence to show that Electrolux dryers were a specific topic of at least

one presentation during at least one such conference, and it has no reason to assume that this was

an isolated incident. Assuming that to be the case (and, of course, substantive questioning on

this topic assumes both that such presentations were made, and that someone from Travelers

attended them), it is entirely proper for Electrolux to inquire as to what was said about Electrolux

dryers, and what bearing that might have on Travelers’ claim—and, again, it is now Travelers’

claim—that the Rouses’ dryer was inherently defective.

This is not, as Travelers’ glibly suggests, an attempt on Electrolux’s part to gain

voyeuristic insight into something about which it would otherwise have no right to inquire.


- 12 -

Rather, this topic relates to discussions about fires involving Electrolux-manufactured clothes

dryers. It goes directly to the issue of whether the Rouses’ dryer suffered from an inherent

defect, and to Travelers’ basis for claiming that it does. Specifically, if Travelers’ claim that the

Rouses’ dryer was inherently defective is based, at least in part, on presentations or discussions

about Electrolux-manufactured dryers at such conferences, Electrolux is entitled to explore what

was said and what influence such information might have had on Travelers’ position.

Topic Nos. 5-12 – Web Sites Related To Dryer Maintenance

Approximately half of the disputed topics are slight variations on the exact same theme:

statements that Travelers’ has published in various places on its website, which refelct safety tips

or advice to its policyholders, ostensibly with the goal of reducing the occurrence of incidents

that could lead to covered claims. Among these are several pages that contain a suggestion

stating, in form or substance, that homeowners should clean lint from the interior of the dryer

and/or from the dryer venting. This is a critical area of inquiry, as Electrolux’s position is that it

is the lack of proper maintenance—specifically with respect to the cleaning of lint from the

interior of the dryer and the dryer’s exterior venting—that leads to dryer fires, as opposed to any

form of defect. Plainly, Travelers believes strongly enough that lack of proper cleaning

contributes, at least in some manner, to the risk of dryer fires that it has, on multiple occasions,

published this “tip” to its policyholders, alongside advice such as—to give just some examples

from the “Winter maintenance tips”—not overloading electrical outlets when installing holiday

decorations, and making sure there is sufficient heat in the home to prevent pipes from freezing.2

To put the issue more broadly, the plaintiff in this case is on record as crediting— at least to

2 See https://www.travelers.com/prepare-prevent/home-property/home-maintenance-tips/winter-home-maintenance-tips.aspx.


- 13 -

some degree—the basis for one of Electrolux’s most important affirmative defenses. It is hard to

imagine a more relevant subject for discovery.

In its Motion to Quash, Travelers attempts to obscure this issue by suggesting discovery

into these web pages is improper unless or until it is shown that the Rouses read them. (Docket

No. 31 at 9). As detailed above, Electrolux is concerned with what Travelers (who made an

independent determination to sue over a supposed defect in this matter) believes about the issue

of dryer maintenance. Whether the Rouses read anything on these web pages is less significant

when the Rouses are not the plaintiffs in this matter. That is, were the Rouses bringing a direct

action against Electrolux, whether they read the information would no doubt inform, for

example, an assumption-of-the-risk defense. But that is not the issue here at all. Electrolux is

simply trying to confirm what seems apparent from these various web-based tips: that Travelers

agrees, at least in part, that lack of proper maintenance can cause dryer fires.

Ultimately, Travelers has filed a lawsuit based on a purported fire in a dryer, and

Electrolux has asserted it was a lack of proper cleaning and maintenance that caused the fire.

Given that simple premise, how Travelers can claim no obligation to explain and discuss its own

statements about the importance of cleaning the interior and venting of a dryer is difficult to

comprehend. There is nothing in the pleadings to suggest that Travelers’ claim of defect is in

any way based on an assumption that the Rouses’ dryer was pristinely clean, such that, were

evidence to be adduced that it was not, Travelers would abandon its claim. Put differently,

implicit in Travelers’ Complaint is that cleaning and maintenance do not matter given the

inherent defect in the type of Electrolux-manufactured dryer that the Rouses owned, or at least

that the did not matter enough here. Yet, Travelers continued to caution its policyholders to

clean their dryers, with full knowledge that many who might read those warnings owned the


- 14 -

same type of dryer that the Rouses did. This inconsistency goes directly to the heart of the case,

and Electrolux should be allowed to explore it during a 30(b)(6) deposition.

V. Privilege Objections Cannot Be Asserted In Advance And The Temporal Scope Of Electrolux’s Requests Is Proper. The two remaining non-relevance objections that Travelers asserts—that certain of the

topics might tend to call for privileged testimony (Docket No. 31 at 8) and that Electrolux seeks

discovery covering an unreasonably long time period (Id. at 10)—are both without merit. First,

neither is a basis for an outright refusal to prepare and produce a witness, particularly the

privilege objection. As Travelers well knows, privilege must be asserted on a question-by

question basis, and Electrolux is entitled to probe the basis for any such claims of privilege.

Moreover, Travelers has not offered any persuasive reason why looking back ten years would be

unreasonable as to the only two topics that have a temporal component: conferences where

Electrolux dyer fires were discussed (Topic No. 4) and other articles/blogs/webpages discussing

dryer fires and maintenance (Topic No. 12). Many of the dryers purchased during that time

period are likely to still be in use, so each topic would seem perfectly reasonable in scope. But

Travelers has failed to sustain its burden on that point in any event, and it should not be allowed

to avoid discovery on those topics.

VI. Travelers Should Be Ordered To Pay The Fees And Expenses That Electrolux Incurred In Pursuing This Discovery. Finally, Travelers should be ordered, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 37, to pay the fees and

expenses that Electrolux incurred in bringing this Motion to secure the discovery at issue. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A) (discussing fees for the party that prevails on a discovery motion);

see also, e.g., Rickles v. City of South Bend, Indiana, 33 F.3d 785 (7th Cir. 1994) (noting that

Rule 37 “presumptively requires every loser to make good the victor’s costs”). Electrolux made


- 15 -

every effort to avoid this motion practice, and Travelers has been unreasonably intransigent. Fee

shifting is therefore appropriate.3

Conclusion

Electrolux is not a fishing expedition, and it has no illusions about whether it could—

even if it wanted to—use “invasive” discovery to compel Travelers to abandon its claims. It has

a right to put on a complete defense to this lawsuit, and the discovery that it seeks here is

narrowly tailored to that end and nothing more. If anything, Travelers protests far too much over

these limited areas of inquiry, making ordering this testimony all the more appropriate. For all of

the reasons set forth above, Electrolux’s Motion to Compel should be granted in its entirety, and

it should be awarded its fees for brining this Motion.

Dated: January 28, 2013 Respectfully Submitted, ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.

/s/ Matthew J. Kramer

Michael J. Summerhill (ARDC No. 6274260) Matthew J. Kramer (ARDC No. 6283296) Salvador A. Carranza (ARDC No. 6292519) FREEBORN & PETERS LLP 311 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Tel: (312) 360-6382 Fax: (312) 360-6594 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc.

3 Electrolux would propose to submit detailed billing records to this effect upon order of court.


mailto:[email protected]


- 16 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that, on January 28, 2013, he caused a copy of the foregoing pleading to be served upon the following counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system. Robert J. Spinazzola Maisel & Associates 161 North Clark Street Suite 800 Chicago, Illinois 60601 [email protected]




Case: 1:12-cv-02386 Document #: 31-1 Filed: 01/22/13 Page 1 of 23 PageID #:122

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, WESTERN DIVISION

THE TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o KENT AND KIMBERLY ROUSE

Plaintiff,

v.

ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.

Defendant.

Civil No. 1:12-cv-02386 District Judge Frederick J. Kapala Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (“Electrolux”), by and through its undersigned

counsel and pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 37, hereby submits this Motion to Compel Discovery,

and, in support thereof, Electrolux refers to and incorporates the accompanying Combined

Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel and Response to Motion to Quash (the

“Memorandum”). For the reasons stated in the Memorandum, the Court should order Plaintiff

The Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company a/s/o Kent and Kimberly Rouse to prepare

and produce a witness to testify as to the topics set forth in Electrolux’s modified Notice of

Deposition pursuant to FED. R. CIV. 30(b)(6), as well as award Electrolux the fees that it incurred

in bringing this Motion.

Dated: January 28, 2013 Respectfully Submitted, ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.



- 2 -

Michael J. Summerhill (ARDC No. 6274260) Matthew J. Kramer (ARDC No. 6283296) Salvador A. Carranza (ARDC No. 6292519) FREEBORN & PETERS LLP 311 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Tel: (312) 360-6382 Fax: (312) 360-6594 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc.




- 3 -


The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that, on January 28, 2013, he caused a copy of the foregoing pleading to be served upon the following counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF system. Robert J. Spinazzola Maisel & Associates 161 North Clark Street Suite 800 Chicago, Illinois 60601 [email protected]




EXHIBIT A


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, WESTERN DIVISION

THE TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY ) INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o KENT AND ) KIMBERLY ROUSE, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) NO. 12 CV 2386 vs. ) ) JURY DEMAND ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., ) Defendant. )

NOTICE OF RULE 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION To: Robert J. Spinazzola Maisel & Associates 161 North Clark Street Suite 800 Chicago, Illinois 60601 [email protected] PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure, Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc. shall take the deposition of the person or

persons designated to testify as to matters known or reasonably available to Plaintiff The

Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company as if upon cross-examination, concerning the

topics listed in Exhibit A, in accordance with the provided definitions. The deposition shall

commence at 9:00 a.m. on December 7, 2012, at the offices of Freeborn & Peters LLP, 311

South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000, Chicago, Illinois 60606, and continue day-to-day until

completed. This examination may be recorded by audio, visual, or stenographic means before a

Notary Public or other person authorized to administer oaths pursuant to Rule 30 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. You are invited to attend and examine.



2

Dated: October 30, 2012 Respectfully Submitted, ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.

s/ Matthew J. Kramer Michael J. Summerhill (ARDC No. 6274260) Matthew J. Kramer (ARDC No. 6283296) Salvador A. Carranza (ARDC No. 6292519) FREEBORN & PETERS LLP 311 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Tel: (312) 360-6382 Fax: (312) 360-6594 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc.





The undersigned attorney hereby certifies that, on October 30, 2012, a copy of the

foregoing Rule 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition was served upon the following counsel of record

via e-mail and United States mail.

Robert J. Spinazzola Maisel & Associates 161 North Clark Street Suite 800 Chicago, Illinois 60601 [email protected]

s/ Matthew J. Kramer

Counsel for Defendant Electrolux Home Products, Inc.



Exhibit A Electrolux Home Products, Inc. (“Electrolux”) incorporates by reference the definitions

contained in its First Set of Requests for Production Directed to Plaintiff and First Set of

Interrogatories Directed to Plaintiff. Electrolux reserves the right to supplement or otherwise

amend this list of categories to address other issues in this case.

The Travelers Property Casualty Insurance Company (“Travelers”) shall designate and

produce the person or persons most knowledgeable to testify on its behalf regarding each of the

following issues:

1. The underwriting and creation of homeowner insurance policies concerning the

risk assessments undertaken pursuant to actuarial analysis, policy premium costs, policy

exclusions and other bases for the language in Travelers’ homeowner policies covering fire loss.

2. The number of home insurance claims Travelers paid out from 2002 to present as

a result of a clothes dryer fire, including the dollar amount of the claims paid and the

manufacturer of the clothes dryers involved.

3. The number of subrogation law suits brought by Travelers from 2002 to the

present against Electrolux as a result of alleged clothes dryer fires, including, but not limited to,

the dollar amount involved in the suits and the manufacturer of the clothes dryers involved.

4. The number of subrogation law suits brought by Travelers from 2002 to the

present against clothes dryer manufacturers other than Electrolux as a result of alleged clothes

dryer fires, including, but not limited to, the dollar amount involved in the suits and the

manufacturer of the clothes dryers involved.


2

5. The number of law suits brought against Travelers by any person from 2002 to the

present as a result of Travelers’ refusal to cover a claim of loss related to an alleged clothes dryer

fire.

6. Any and all subrogation units within Travelers whose focus is on clothes dryer

fire claims.

7. Travelers’ policies, procedures, and training related to claims investigations,

scene inspections, evidence handling, spoliation, and notice to and other communications with

product manufacturers.

8. The coverage analysis undertaken for homeowner policy claims involving clothes

dryer fire claims generally and with respect to the claim in this matter concerning coverage

determinations, use of reservation of rights letters and/or memoranda to homeowners generally

and the homeowners in this matter.

9. Travelers’ analysis, including testing, of clothes dryers manufactured by

Electrolux.

10. Travelers’ analysis, including testing, of dryers manufactured by any other clothes

dryer manufacturer, including, but not limited to, Kenmore, General Electric, Whirlpool,

Maytag, LG, Bosch, and Samsung.

11. Exclusions in Travelers’ insurance policies based on a clothes dryer manufactured

by Electrolux, including any makes, models, or brand names excluded from coverage.

12. The attendance of any of Travelers’ employees, former employees, agents,

contractors, or subcontractors in any conference, seminar, or meeting from 2002 to the present in

which Electrolux clothes dryer fires were discussed, including, but not limited to, meetings held

by the National Association of Subrogation Lawyers and any internal seminars or meetings.


3

13. Travelers’ webpage titled “Winter maintenance tips: Keep the chill out and safely

enjoy the season,” published at https://www.travelers.com/prepare-prevent/home-property/home-

maintenance-tips/winter-home-maintenance-tips.aspx (attached as Exhibit 1), including its

creation, production, authorization for publication, and the basis, including testing, for any

claims or statements made on the webpage regarding clothes dryers, clothes dryer maintenance,

the cleaning of clothes dryers, exhaust ducts, lint, and fire.

14. Travelers’ webpage titled “Spring maintenance tips: Spring ahead with these

home maintenance tips,” published at https://www.travelers.com/prepare-prevent/home-

property/home-maintenance-tips/spring-home-maintenance-tips.aspx (attached as Exhibit 2),

including its creation, production, authorization for publication, and the basis, including testing,

for any claims or statements made on the webpage regarding clothes dryers, clothes dryer

maintenance, the cleaning of clothes dryers, exhaust ducts, lint, dust, and “pieces of material.”

15. Travelers’ webpage titled “Summer maintenance tips: Enjoy longer days and

warmer nights while protecting your investment,” published at https://www.travelers.com/

prepare-prevent/home-property/home-maintenance-tips/summer-home-maintenance-tips.aspx

(attached as Exhibit 3), including its creation, production, authorization for publication, and the

basis, including testing, for any claims or statements made on the webpage regarding clothes

dryers, clothes dryer maintenance, the cleaning of clothes dryers, exhaust ducts, lint, dust, and

“pieces of material.”

16. Travelers’ webpage titled “Fall maintenance tips: Prepare your home for cooler

days ahead,” published at https://www.travelers.com/prepare-prevent/home-property/home-

maintenance-tips/fall-home-maintenance-tips.aspx (attached as Exhibit 4), including its creation,

production, authorization for publication, and the basis, including testing, for any claims or


4

statements made on the webpage regarding clothes dryers, clothes dryer maintenance, the

cleaning of clothes dryers, exhaust ducts, lint, dust, and “pieces of material.”

17. Travelers’ webpage titled “Prevent common household fires,” published at

https://www.travelers.com/prepare-prevent/home-property/fire/fire-preventable-scenarios.aspx

(attached as Exhibit 5), including its creation, production, authorization for publication, and the

basis, including testing, for any claims or statements made on the webpage regarding the

statement “clothes dryers are another common source of house fires,” dryer vent installation,

dryer vent cleaning, following directions, lint, and lint filters.

18. Travelers’ web blog titled “Dryer Vent Safety Factors,” published at

http://www.thetravelers.net/blog/dryer-vent-safety-factors (attached as Exhibit 6), including its

creation, production, authorization for publication, and the basis, including testing, for any

claims or statements made on the webpage regarding clothes dryers, clogged dryer vents, fires,

“breakdowns,” lint, vent ducts, vent conduit, duct material, lint filters, and dryer installation

manuals.

19. Travelers’ “Fire Safety Game,” located online at https://www.travelers.com/

personal-insurance/home-insurance/safety-game/firegame.html (attached as Exhibit 7), including

its creation, production, authorization for publication, and the basis, including testing, for any

claims or statements made regarding the statement “recent studies indicate that dryers can be a

major fire hazard,” dryer exhaust ducts, dryer exhaust housing, metal ducts, plastic ducts, leaving

home or going to bed while the dryer is on, and lint.

20. Any other articles, blogs, letters, audio recordings, video recordings, or any other

documents regarding clothes dryer fires, clothes dryer maintenance, and clothes dryer cleaning

prepared by Travelers from 2002 to the present, including all drafts and revisions.


5

21. Travelers’ answers to Interrogatories in this matter.

22. The training of the persons handling the adjustment and investigation of this claim

on Travelers’ behalf or on behalf of a related Travelers company.

23. The timing of Travelers’ decision to pursue subrogation in this matter, the

individuals that participated in the decision, and any policies, procedures, or claim handling

guidelines triggered by Travelers’ decision.

24. Any training Travelers provided to the person involved in the adjustment and

forensic investigation of this matter (including the property adjusters) concerning the handling,

securing, or preservation of evidence or potential evidence, including without limitation, the

nature of the training, an identification of any training materials, the author(s) of any training

materials, the instructor(s) for the training, the date(s) of the training, and the employees to

whom training was provided.

25. Any opinion, judgment, verdict, or order by any court, administrative agency, or

other judicial or quasi-judicial body that contains a finding that Travelers spoliated evidence

related to a fire or fire scene, including without limitation, the name of the court, the date of the

finding, the identities of the parties to the proceeding, and the case number of the proceeding.


EXHIBIT B


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, WESTERN DIVISION

THE TRAVELERS PROPERTYCASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/oKENT AND KIMBERLY ROUSE,

Plaintiff,v.

ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC.,

Defendants.

No. 12 CV 2386

JURY DEMAND

Honorable Judge Frederick J. Kapala

Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE AND OBJECTION TODEFENDANT'S RULE 30(B) (6) DEPOSITION NOTICE

NOW .COMES the plaintiff, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY

INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o KENT AND KIMBERLY ROUSE, by and through its

attorneys, MAISEL &ASSOCIATES, and in response to Defendant's Rule 30 (b) (6)

notice for deposition of corporate designee on December 7, 2012, states as follows:

DEFINITIONS

Plaintiff adopts and incorporates by reference as if set forth herein in haec veNba all of

the objections and qualifying statements contained in its Answers to Defendant'sInterrogatories and in its Response to Defendant's Request to Produce. These objections

and statements shall be read to be incorporated by reference herein as Plaintiff's

response to the incorporation by reference of the definitions contained in Defendant'sInterrogatories and its Request to Produce.

OBJCTION TO EXHIBIT A REQUEST FOR DESIGNATED WITNESS

The Travelers Property Casualty .Insurance Company ("Travelers") shall

designate and produce the person or persons most knowledgeable to testify on its behalf

regarding each of the following issues:

1. The underwriting and creation of homeowner insurance policies concerning the

risk assessments undertaken pursuant to actuarial analysis, policy premium costs, policy


exclusions and other bases for the language in Travelers' homeowner policies covering

fire loss.

OBJECTION TO REQUEST 1

This request is overly broad and burdensome and not properly limited in scope to

a reasonably specified time period. As formulated this request seeks a designees) for the

entire history of the Plaintiff. Such information is neither relevant nor designed to lead to

relevant information.

This request is unduly vague, irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to

discovery of admissible evidence. Pursuant to Federal Rule 26(b) (1), discovery is

limited to non-privileged matters that are "relevant to the party's claim or defense..."

The issues in the present case are limited to whether the Defendant's product was

defective or whether the Defendant was negligent in the design, manufacture, or

distribution of its product; the damages resulting there from; and whether any negligence

exists on the part of the owners of the dryer that contributed to the loss. Consequently

discovery directed at information concerning the Plaintiff's underwriting activities, risk

assessment, actuarial analysis, policy premium costs, policy exclusions and the language

of the Plaintiff's policy are not relevant to this action nor would they lead to admissible

evidence.

Plaintiff objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information from

Plaintiff's subsidiary or affiliate companies who are .not parties to this action.

Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that said request

encroaches upon areas and/or topics which are protected from disclosure by the attorney-

client privilege or work product protection. Due to the breadth of the instant request, it

may seek the disclosure of specific communications and/or information potentially

involving counsel and generated in connection with prior, pending, and/or anticipated

litigation. Said communications and/or information are therefore protected from

disclosure by the attorney-client privilege and or work/product privilege.

Plaintiff objects to the extent this request seeks information that constitutes

confidential; proprietary and/or trade secret material that, if disclosed in discovery in this

matter, could place Plaintiff at a competitive business disadvantage and/or dilute any

competitive advantage currently held by Plaintiff

Furthermore, Defendant's request fails to identify subject matter other than the

physical act of the production of any documents. Defendant has failed to provide any

information to enable Plaintiff to identify what individuals) is/are best suited to testify

and Plaintiff objects on that basis. For example, Plaintiff is uncertain as. to whether

Defendant is requesting a record custodian, the creator and/or recipient of any document,


a person with mere familiarity with the content of all documents or a particulardocument, etc. Also the volume of documents that are contemplated by this requestprecludes any diligent inquiry to determine which individual is/are best, suited to testify,and Plaintiff objects on that basis.

2. The number of home insurance claims Travelers paid out from 2002 topresent as a result of a clothes dryer fire, including the dollar amount of the claims paidand the manufacturer of the clothes dryers involved.


This request is overly broad and burdensome as it requests information for a tenyear period of time. Accordingly, as set forth, the information is neither relevant nordesigned to lead to relevant information.

Additionally, this request is objectionable because it is unduly vague, .irrelevantand not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Pursuant toFederal Rule 26(b) (1), discovery is limited to non-privileged matters that are "relevantto the party's claim or defense..." The issues in the present case are limited to whetherthe Defendant's product was defective or whether the Defendant was negligent in thedesign, manufacture, or distribution of its product; the damages resulting there from; andwhether any negligence exists on the part of the owners of the dryer that contributed tothe loss. Consequently discovery directed at information concerning the number ofhomeowners dryer fire claims paid by Travelers and its affiliates, the identity of themanufacturers of those dryers and the dollar amount paid are not relevant to this actionnor would they lead to admissible evidence.

Plaintiff objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information fromPlaintiff's subsidiary or affiliate companies who are not parties to this action.

Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that said requestencroaches upon areas and/or topics which are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection.. Due to the breadth of the instant request, itmay seek the disclosure of specific communications and/or information potentiallyinvolving counsel and generated in connection with prior, pending, and/or anticipatedlitigation. Said communications and/or information are therefore protected fromdisclosure by the attorney-client privilege and or work/product privilege.

Plaintiff objects to the extent this request seeks information that constitutesconfidential, proprietary and/or trade secret material that, if disclosed in discovery in thismatter, could place Plaintiff at a competitive business disadvantage and/or dilute anycompetitive advantage currently held by Plaintiff.




ia~formation to enable Plaintiff to identify what individuals) is/are best suited to testify

and Plaintiff objects on that basis. For example, Plaintiff is uncertain as to whether


a person with mere familiarity with the content of all documents or a particular

document, etc. Also the volume of documents that are contemplated by this request

precludes any diligent inquiry to determine which individual is/are best suited to testify,

and Plaintiff objects on that basis.

3. The number of subrogation law suits brought by Travelers from 2002 to

the present against Electrolux as a result of alleged clothes dryer fires, including, but not

limited to, the dollar amount involved in the suits and the manufacturer of the clothes

dryers involved.


This request is overly broad and burdensome as it requests information for a ten

year period of time. Accordingly, as set forth, the information is neither relevant nor

designed to lead to relevant information.

Additionally, this request is objectionable because it is unduly vague, irrelevant

and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Pursuant to

Federal Rule 26(b) (1), discovery is limited to non-privileged matters that are "relevant

to the party's claim or defense..." The issues in the present case are limited to whether

the Defendant's product here was defective or whether the Defendant was negligent in

the design, manufacture, or distribution of its product; the damages resulting there from;

and whether any negligence exists. on the part of the owners of the dryer that contributed

to the loss. Consequently discovery directed at information concerning the number of

subrogation actions brought by Travelers or its affiliates against Electrolux is not

relevant to the issues in this action nor would they lead to admissible evidence since each

and every subrogation suit involves a separate and distinct event and claim.


Plaintiff's subsidiary or affiliate companies who are not parties to this action.










confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret material that, if disclosed in discovery in this


competitive advantage currently held by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff also objects to this request because the information it seeks is already in

the possession of the Defendant.










4. The number of subrogation law suits brought by Travelers from 2002 to

the present against clothes dryer manufacturers other than Electrolux as a result of

alleged clothes dryer_ fires, including, but not limited to, the dollar amount involved in the

suits and the manufacturer of the clothes dryers involved.






and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Pursuant to

Federal Rule 26(b) (1), discovery is limited to non-privileged matters that are "relevant




and whether any negligence exists on the part of the owners of the dryer that contributed

to the loss. Consequently discovery directed at information concerning the number of

subrogation actions brought by Travelers or its affiliates against dryer manufacturers'

other than Electrolux, the amount of these individual claims and the identity of the

manufacturer is not relevant to any issue in this action nor would they lead to admissible

evidence since each and every subrogation suit involves a separate and distinct event and

claim.
















physical act of the production of any documents. Defendant has failed to provide anyinformation to enable Plaintiff to identify what individuals) is/are best suited to testify



a person with mere familiarity with the content of all documents or a particulardocument, etc. Also the volume of documents that are contemplated by this request



5. The number of law suits brought against Travelers by any person from

2002 to the present as a result of Travelers' refusal to cover a claim of loss related to an

alleged clothes dryer fire.






and _not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Pursuant to

Federal Rule 26(b) (1), discovery is limited to non,privileged matters that are "relevant

to the party's claim or defense..." The. issues in the present case are limited to whether


the design, manufacture, or distribution of its product; the damages resulting there from;.

and whether any negligence exists on the part of the owners of the dryer that. contributed

to the loss. Consequently the "number of "suits against Travelers for an alleged failure

to cover a claimed loss are not relevant to any issue in this action nor would they .lead to

admissible evidence for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to the fact that


each and every suit involves a separate and distinct event and claim. Moreover, lawsuitsrelated to coverage by Travelers of other claims are not in any way relevant in this actionbecause there has been no dispute over coverage here. As a result, the Defendant cannotmake any possible showing that the information it seeks would lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence.


Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that said requestencroaches upon areas and/or topics which are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection. Due to the breadth of the instant request, itmay seek the disclosure of specific communications and/or information potentiallyinvolving counsel and generated in connection with prior, pending, and/or anticipatedlitigation. Said communications and/or information are therefore protected fromdisclosure by the attorney-client privilege and or work/product privilege.


Furthermore, Defendant's request fails to identify subject matter other than thephysical act of the production of any documents. Defendant has failed to provide anyinformation to enable Plaintiff to identify what individuals) is/are best suited to testifyand Plaintiff objects on that basis. For example, Plaintiff is uncertain as to whetherDefendant is requesting a record custodian, the creator and/or recipient of any document,a person with mere familiarity with the content of all documents or a particulardocument, etc. Also the volume of documents that are contemplated by this requestprecludes any diligent inquiry to determine which individual is/are best suited to testify,and Plaintiff objects on that basis.

6. Any and all subrogation units within Travelers whose focus is on clothesdryer fire claims.

OBECTION TO REQUEST 6

This request is overly broad and burdensome and riot properly limited in scope toa reasonably specified time period. As formulated this request seeks a designees) for theentire history of the Plaintiff. Such information is neither relevant nor designed to lead torelevant information.

Additionally, this request is objectionable because it is unduly vague, irrelevantand not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Pursuant toFederal Rule 26(b) (1), discovery is limited to non-privileged matters that are "relevant





and whether any negligence exists on the part of the owners of the dryer that contributed

to the loss. Consequently discovery directed at the corporate or internal structure of the

Plaintiff is not relevant to the issue of the subject fire, its cause, or the damages

occasioned thereby.








litigation. ,Said communications and/or information are therefore protected from





competitive advantage currently held by Plaintiff










7. Travelers' policies, procedures, and training related to claims

investigations, scene inspections, evidence handling,communications with product manufacturers.


spoliation, and notice to and other







and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Specifically,

amongst other things, the terms "policies, procedures and training" are unduly vague and

without definition. Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule 26(b) (1), discovery is limited to

non-privileged matters that are "relevant to the party's claim or defense..." The issues in

the present case are limited to whether the Defendant's product here was defective or

whether the Defendant was negligent in the design, .manufacture, or distribution of its

product; the damages resulting there from; and whether any negligence exists on the part

of the owners of the dryer that contributed to the loss. Consequently discovery directed

at the Plaintiff's scene investigation and evidence handling is not relevant to the issue of

the subject fire, its cause, or the damages occasioned thereby. Furthermore, this request

is objectionable since. Defendant had representatives at the subject fire scene who

participated in a scene examination and a representative who inspected the dryer artifact

in a joint laboratory examination; both were conducted without objection by Defendant.























8. The coverage analysis undertaken for homeowner policy claims involving

clothes dryer fire claims generally and with respect. to the claim in this matter concerning

coverage determinations, use of reservation of rights letters and/or memoranda to

homeowners generally and the homeowners in this matter.





entire history of the- Plaintiff. Such information is neither relevant nor designed to lead to




amongst other things, the terms "generally" and "coverage analysis and coverage

determinations" are unduly vague and without definition. Moreover, pursuant to Federal

Rule 26(b) (1), discovery is limited to non-privileged matters that are "relevant to the

party's claim or defense..." The issues in the .present case are limited to whether the

Defendant's product here was defective or whether the Defendant was negligent in thedesign, manufacture, or distribution of its product; the damages resulting there from; .andwhether any negligence exists on the part of the owners of the dryer that contributed to

the loss. Consequently discovery directed at the Plaintiff's handling and coverage

analysis of other fire claims and even other dryer fire claims is not relevant to this case

nor would it lead to relevant information or admissible evidence because each of these

fires is a separate and distinct event. Furthermore, this request is objectionable since

there is no evidence here that any "reservation of rights" letter was ever issued in

connection with the subject fire claim.



Plaintiff- further objects to this request on the grounds that said request







Plaintiff objects to the extent this request seeks information that constitutesconfidential, proprietary and/or trade secret material that, if disclosed in discovery in this









document, etc. Also the volume of documents that are contemplated by this regaest




9. Travelers' analysis, including testing, of clothes dryers manufactured by

Electrolux.




entire history of the Plaintiff Moreover, the information sought in this request is neither

relevant nor designed to lead to relevant, material or admissible information or evidence.



amongst other things, the terms "analysis" and "testing" are unduly vague and without

definition. Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule 26(b) (1), discovery is limited to non-

privileged matters that are "relevant to the party's claim or defense..." The issues in the

present case are limited to whether the Defendant's product here was defective or

whether the Defendant was negligent in the design, manufacture, or distribution of its



at the Plaintiff's handling of other fire claims involving other Electrolux dryers is not

relevant to this case nor would it lead to relevant information or admissible evidence

because each of these fires is a separate and distinct event.

Plaintiff objects to these requests to the extent that they seek information from


Plaintiff further objects to these requests on the grounds that said requests


client privilege or work product protection. Due to the breadth of the instant requests, it





Plaintiff objects to the extent these requests seek information that constitutes





physical act of the production of any documents: Defendant has failed to provide any





a person with mere familiarity with the- content of all documents or a particular




Plaintiff additionally objects to the request to the extent that it seeks matters that

are the subject of expert discovery. Plaintiff will disclose its experts and make them

available for depositions in compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and the

deadlines set by this court.

10. Travelers' analysis, including testing, of dryers manufactured by any other

clothes dryer manufacturer, including, but not limited to, Kenmore, General Electric,

Whirlpool, Maytag, LG, Bosch, and Samsung.

OBJECTION TO REQUESTS 10.



entire history of the Plaintiff. Moreover, the information sought in this request is neither

relevant nor designed to lead to relevant, material or admissible information or evidence.



amongst other things, the terms "analysis" and "testing" are unduly vague and without

definition. Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule 26(b) (1), discovery is limited to non-

privileged matters that are "relevant to the party's claim or defense..." The issues in the

present case are limited to whether the Defendant's product here was defective or

whether the Defendant was negligent in the design, manufacture, or distribution of its



at the Plaintiff's handling of other dryer fire claims involving other manufacturers named

in Request 10 is not relevant to this case nor would it lead to relevant information or

admissible evidence because each of these fires is a separate and distinct event.

Plaintiff objects to these requests to theextent that they seek information from

Plaintiff's subsidiary or affiliate companies who are not parties to, this action.

Plaintiff further objects to these requests on the grounds. that said requests



client privilege or work product protection. Due to the breadth of the instant requests, it



litigation. Said communications and/or information are therefore protected -from


Plaintiff objects to the extent these requests seek information that constitutes













Plaintiff additionally objects to the request to the extent that it seeks matters that


available for depositions in .compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and the


11. Exclusions in Travelers' insurance policies based on a clothes dryer

manufactured by Electrolux, including any makes, models, or brand names excluded

from coverage.

OBJECTION TO REQUEST 11.







amongst other things, the terms "exclusions," "makes and models or brand names" are

unduly vague and without definition. Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule 26(b) (1),

discovery is limited to non-privileged matters that are "relevant to the party's claim or

defense..." The issues in the present case are limited to whether the Defendant's product

here was defective or whether the Defendant was negligent in the design, manufacture,

or distribution of its product; the damages resulting there from; and whether any


negligence exists on the part of the owners of the dryer that contributed to the loss.

Consequently discovery directed at the exclusions contained in Plaintiff's policies of

insurance involving other Electrolux manufactured dryers is not relevant to this case nor

would it lead to relevant information or admissible evidence because there is no evidence

in this case that any such exclusion existed, was asserted or was applied for this

particular fire loss.























12. The attendance of any of Travelers' employees, former employees, agents,

contractors, or subcontractors in any conference, seminar, or meeting from 2002 to the

present in which Electrolux clothes dryer fires. were discussed, including, but not .limited

to, meetings' held by the National Association of Subrogation Lawyers and any internal

seminars or meetings.


This request is overly broad and burdensome. Such information is neither

relevant nor designed to lead to relevant information.



and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover,pursuant to Federal Rule 26(b) (1), discovery is limited to non-privileged matters that are"relevant to the party's claim or defense..." The issues in the present case are limited towhether the Defendant's product here was defective or whether the Defendant wasnegligent in the design, manufacture, or distribution of its product; the damages resultingthere from; and whether any negligence exists on the part of the.owners of the dryer thatcontributed to the loss. Consequently discovery directed at the attendance of meetingswhere Electrolux dryer fires were discussed other than discussions concerning thesubject fire is not relevant to this case nor would it lead to relevant information oradmissible evidence.

Plaintiff objects to this request to the extent that it seeks information fromPlaintiffl s subsidiary or affiliate companies who are not parties to this action.



Furthermore, Defendant's request fails to identify subject matter other than thephysical act of the production of any documents. Defendant has failed to provide anyinformation to enable Plaintiff to identify what individuals) is/are best suited to testifyand Plaintiff objects on that basis. For example, Plaintiff is uncertain as to whetherDefendant is requesting a record custodian, the creator and/or recipient of any document,a person with mere familiarity with the content of all documents or a particulardocument, etc. Also the volume of documents that are contemplated by this requestprecludes any diligent inquiry to determine which individual is/are best suited to testify,and Plaintiff objects on that basis.

Plaintiff additionally objects to the request to the extent that it seeks matters thatare the subject of expert discovery. Plaintiff will disclose its experts and make themavailable for depositions in compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and thedeadlines set by this court.

13. Travelers' webpage titled "Winter maintenance tips: Keep the chill out

and safely enjoy the season," published at https://www.travelers.com/prepare-prevent/home-Property/home-maintenance-tips/winter-home-maintenance-tips. aspx

(attached as E~ibit 1), including its creation, production, authorization for publication,


and the basis; including testing, for any_- ,claims or statements made on the webpage

regarding clothes dryers, clothes dryer maintenance, the cleaning of clothes dryers,

exhaust ducts, lint, and fire.

OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST 13




Additionally, this request is objectionable because it is broad, unduly vague,

irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.

Specifically, amongst other things, the terms "analysis" and "testing" are unduly vague

and without definition. Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule 26(b) (1), discovery is

limited to non-privileged matters that are "relevant to the party's claim or defense..."

The issues in the present case are limited to whether the Defendant's product here was

defective or whether the Defendant was negligent in the design, manufacture, or

distribution of its product; the damages resulting there from; and whether any negligence

exists' on the part of the owners of the dryer that contributed to the loss. Consequently

discovery directed at information provided about other dryers than the one involved

herein is overly broad and irrelevant. Moreover, the Defendant has not established that

the Plaintiff's insureds ever visited, consulted, had access to or were aware of the

website(s) at issue and therefore these requests are not reasonably calculated to lead to

the discovery of admissible evidence for that reason as well.





client privilege or work product protection. Due to the breadth of the instant requests,

they may seek the disclosure of specific communications and/or information potentially






matter, could place Plaintiff at a competitive business .disadvantage and/or dilute any




information to enable Plaintiff to identify .what individuals) is/are best suited to testify

and. Plaintiff objects on that basis. For example, Plaintiff is uncertain as to whether







Plaintiff additionally objects to this_ request to the extent that it seeks matters that


available for depositions. in compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and the


14. Travelers' webpage titled "Spring maintenance tips: Spring ahead with

these home maintenance tips," published at https://www.travelers.com/prepare-

prevent/home-pro~erty/home-maintenance-tips/spring,-home-maintenance-tip s. aspx

(attached as E~ibit 2), including its creation, production, authorization for publication,

and the basis, including testing, for any claims or statements made on the webpage

regarding clothes dryers, clothes dryer maintenance, the cleaning of clothes dryers,

exhaust ducts, lint, dust, and "pieces of material."


See Objection to Request 13, incorporated as if fully set forth herein.

15. Travelers' webpage titled "Summer maintenance tips: Enjoy longer days and

armer nights while protecting your investment," published at

https•//www travelers com/prepare-prevent/home-~roperty/home-maintenance-

tips/summer-home-maintenance-tips.aspx (attached as E~ibit 3), including its creation,

production, authorization for publication, and the basis, including testing, for any claims

or statements made on the webpage regarding clothes dryers, clothes dryer maintenance,

the cleaning of clothes dryers, exhaust ducts, lint, dust, and "pieces of material."



16. Travelers' webpage titled "Fall maintenance tips: Prepare your home for

cooler days ahead," published at https•//www.travelers.com/~repare-prevent/home-

propertX/home-maintenance-tips/fall-home-maintenance-tips.aspx (attached as Exhibit 4),

including its creation, production, authorization for publication, and the basis, including

testing, for any claims or statements made on the webpage regarding clothes dryers,

clothes dryer maintenance, the cleaning of clothes dryers, e~aust ducts, lint, dust, and

"pieces of material."




17. Travelers' webpage titled "Prevent common household fires," published athttps://www.travelers. com/prepare-prevent/home-property/fire/fire-preventable-scenarios.aspx (attached as Exhibit 5), including its creation, production, authorizationfor publication, and the basis, including testing, for any claims or statements made on thewebpage regarding .the statement "clothes dryers are another common source of housefires," dryer vent installation, dryer vent cleaning, following directions, lint, and lintfilters:



18. Travelers' web blog titled "Dryer Vent Safety Factors," published athrip://www.thetravelers.net/blo~ dryer-vent-safety-factors (attached as Exhibit 6),including its creation, production, authorization for publication, and the basis, includingtesting, for any claims or statements -made on the webpage regarding clothes dryers,clogged dryer vents, fires, "breakdowns," lint, vent ducts, vent conduit, duct material, lintfilters, and dryer installation manuals.

OBJECTION TO REpUEST 18


19. Travelers' "Fire Safety Game," located online athttps://www.travelers.com/ personal-insurance/home-insurance/safety-game/firegame.html (attached as E~ibit 7), including its creation, production,authorization for publication, and the basis, including testing, for any claims orstatements made regarding the statement "recent studies indicate that dryers can be amajor fire hazard," dryer e~aust ducts, dryer e~aust housing, metal ducts, plastic ducts,leaving home or going to bed while the dryer is on, and lint.


See Objection to Request 13, .incorporated as if fully set forth herein

20. Any other articles, blogs, letters, audio recordings, video recordings, or anyother documents regarding clothes dryer fires, clothes dryer maintenance, and clothesdryer cleaning prepared by Travelers from 2002 to the present, including all drafts andrevisions.

OBJECTIONS TO REQUEST 20

This request is overly broad and burdensome as it requests information for a tenyear period of time. Accordingly, as set forth, the information is neither relevant nordesigned to lead to relevant information.


Additionally, this request is objectionable because it is broad, unduly vague,irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.Specifically, amongst other things, the terms "analysis" and "testing" are unduly vagueand without def nition. Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule 26(b) (1), discovery islimited to non-privileged matters that are "relevant to the party's claim or defense..."The issues in the present case are limited to whether the Defendant's product here wasdefective or whether the Defendant was negligent in the design, manufacture, ordistribution of its product; the damages resulting there from; -and whether any negligenceexists on the part of the owners of the dryer that contributed to the loss. Consequentlydiscovery directed at information provided about other dryers than the one involvedherein is overly broad and irrelevant. Moreover, the Defendant has not established thatthe Plaintiff's insureds ever visited, consulted, had access to or were aware of anyinformation regarding clothes dryers prepared by anyone, including Travelers, thereforethis request is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidencefor that reason as well.


Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that said requestencroaches upon areas and/or topics which are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection. Due to the breadth of the instant requests,they may seek the disclosure of specific communications and/or information potentiallyinvolving counsel and generated in connection with prior, pending, and/or anticipatedlitigation. Said communications and/or information are therefore protected fromdisclosure by the attorney-client privilege and or work/product privilege.


Furthermore, Defendant's request fails to identify subject matter other than thephysical act of the production of any documents. Defendant has failed to provide anyinformation to enable Plaintiff to identify what individuals) is/are best suited to testifyand Plaintiff objects on that basis. For example, Plaintiff is uncertain as to whetherDefendant is requesting a record custodian, the creator and/or recipient of any document,a person with mere familiarity with the content of all documents or a particulardocument, etc. Also the volume of documents that are contemplated by this requestprecludes any diligent inquiry to determine which individual . is/are best suited to testify,and Plaintiff objects on that basis.

Plaintiff additionally objects to this request to the. extent that it seeks matters thatare the subject of expert discovery. Plaintiff will disclose its experts and make themavailable for depositions in compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure and thedeadlines set by this court.


21. Travelers' answers to Interrogatories in this matter.


Defendant's request fails to identify subject matter other than the physicalInterrogatory answers. Defendant has failed to provide any information to enable Plaintiffto identify what individuals) is/are best suited to testify and Plaintiff objects on thatbasis. For example, Plaintiff is uncertain as to whether Defendant is requesting a recordcustodian, the creator and/or recipient of any document, a person with mere familiaritywith the content of all answers or a particular answer or document.

Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that said requestencroaches upon areas and/or topics which are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection. Due to the breadth of the instant requests,they may seek the disclosure of specific communications and/or information potentiallyinvolving counsel and generated in connection with prior, pending, and/or anticipatedlitigation. Said communications and/or information are therefore protected fromdisclosure by the- attorney-client privilege and or work/product privilege.

22. The training of the persons handling the adjustment and investigation of

this claim on Travelers' behalf or on behalf of a related Travelers company.



a reasonably specified time period. As formulated this request seeks a designees) for theentire history of the Plaintiff. Such information is neither relevant nor designed to lead torelevant information.

This request is also objectionable because it is overly broad, unduly vague,irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.Specifically, amongst other things, the term "training," is unduly vague and withoutdefinition. Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule 26(b) (1), discovery is limited to non-privileged matters that are "relevant to the party's claim or defense..." The issues in thepresent case are limited to whether the Defendant's product here was defective orwhether the Defendant was negligent in the design, manufacture, or distribution of its

product; the damages resulting there from; and whether any negligence exists on the partof the owners of the dryer that contributed to the loss. Furthermore, this request isobjectionable since Defendant had representatives at the subject fire scene whoparticipated in a scene examination and a representative who inspected the dryer artifact

in a joint laboratory examination; both were conducted without objection by Defendant

Plaintiff objects to these requests to the extent that it seeks information from



Plaintiff further objects to these requests on the grounds that said requestencroaches upon areas and/or topics which are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection.,. Due to the breadth of the instant request, itmay seek the disclosure of specific communications and/or information potentiallyinvolving counsel and generated in connection with prior, pending, and/or anticipatedlitigation. Said communications and/or information are therefore protected fromdisclosure by the attorney-client privilege and or work/product privilege.

Plaintiff objects to the extent these requests seek information that constitutesconfidential, proprietary and/or trade secret material that, if disclosed in discovery in thismatter, could place Plaintiff at a competitive business disadvantage and/or dilute anycompetitive advantage currently held by Plaintiff

Furthermore, Defendant's requests fail to identify subject matter other than thephysical act of the production of any documents. Defendant has failed to provide anyinformation to enable Plaintiff to identify what individuals) is/are best suited to testifyand Plaintiff objects on that basis. For example, Plaintiff is uncertain as to whetherDefendant is requesting a record custodian, the creator and/or recipient of any document,a person with mere familiarity with the content of all documents or a particulardocument, etc. Also the volume of documents that are contemplated by this requestprecludes any diligent inquiry to determine which individual is/are best suited to testify,and Plaintiff objects on that basis.


23. The timing of Travelers' decision to pursue subrogation in this matter, theindividuals that participated in the decision, and any policies, procedures, or claimhandling guidelines triggered by Travelers' decision.


This request is overly broad and. burdensome. Such information is neitherrelevant nor designed to lead to relevant information.

Additionally, this request is objectionable because it is unduly vague, irrelevantand not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Moreover,pursuant to Federal Rule 26(b) (1), discovery is limited to non-privileged matters that are"relevant to the party's claim or defense..." The issues in the present case are limited towhether the Defendant's product here was defective or whether the Defendant wasnegligent in the design, manufacture, or distribution of its product; the damages resultingthere from; and whether any negligence exists on the part of the owners of the dryer thatcontributed to the loss. Consequently discovery directed at the ̀ decision" making process


regarding when to initiate suit is not relevant to the legal or evidentiary issues in thiscase.


Plaintiff further objects to this request on the grounds that said requestencroaches upon areas .and/or topics which are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or work product protection. Due to the breadth of the instant request, itmay seek the disclosure of specific communications and/or information potentiallyinvolving counsel and generated in connection with prior, pending, and/or anticipatedlitigation. Said communications and/or information are therefore protected fromdisclosure by the attorney-client privilege and or work/product privilege.



Furthermore, Defendant's request in part fails to identify subject matter other than

the physical act of the production of any documents regarding "policies, procedures orclaim handling guidelines". Defendant has failed to provide any information to enablePlaintiff to identify what individuals) is/are best suited to testify and Plaintiff objects onthat basis. For example, Plaintiff is uncertain as to whether Defendant is requesting arecord custodian, the creator and/or recipient of any document, a person with merefamiliarity with the content of all documents or a particular document, etc. Also thevolume of documents that are contemplated by this cumulative request precludes anydiligent inquiry to determine which individual is/are best suited to testify, and Plaintiffobjects on that basis.

24. Any training Travelers provided to the person involved in the adjustmentand forensic investigation of this matter (including the property adjusters) concerning thehandling, securing, or preservation of evidence or potential evidence, including withoutlimitation, the nature of the training, an identification of any training materials, theauthors) of any training materials, the instructors) for the training, the dates) of thetraining, and the employees to whom training was provided.

OBJECTION OT REQUEST 24

See Objection to request 22, incorporated as if fully set forth herein.


25. Any opinion, judgment, verdict, or order by any court, administrativeagency, ox other judicial or quasi judicial body that contains a finding that Travelersspoliated .evidence related to a fire or fire scene, including without limitation, the name ofthe court, the date of the finding, the identities of the parties to the proceeding, and thecase number of the proceeding.

OBJCTION TO REQUEST 25

This request is overly broad and burdensome and not properly limited in scope toa reasonably specified time period. As formulated this request seeks a designees) for theentire history of the Plaintiff. Such information is neither relevant nor designed to lead torelevant information.

Additionally, this request is objectionable because it is unduly vague,. irrelevantand not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Pursuant toFederal Rule 26(b) (1), discovery is limited to non-privileged matters that are "relevantto the party's claim or defense..." The issues in the present case are limited to whetherthe Defendant's product here was defective or whether the Defendant was negligent inthe design, manufacture, or distribution of its product; the damages resulting there from;and whether any negligence exists on the part of the owners of the dryer that contributedto the loss. Consequently discovery. directed at the Plaintiff's scene investigation andevidence handling relative to other fire losses is not relevant to the issue of the subjectfire, its cause, or the damages occasioned thereby. Furthermore, this request isobjectionable since Defendant had representatives at the subject fire scene whoparticipated in a scene examination and a representative who inspected the dryer artifactin a joint laboratory examination; both were conducted without objection by Defendant.





Furthermore, Defendant's request fails to identify subject matter other than thephysical act of the production of any documents. Defendant has failed to provide anyinformation to enable Plaintiff to identify- what individuals) is/are best suited to testifyand Plaintiff objects on that basis. For _example, Plaintiff is uncertain as to whetherDefendant is requesting a record custodian, the creator and/or recipient of any document,

a person with mere familiarity with the content of all documents or a particulardocument, etc. Also the volume of documents that are contemplated by this cumulativerequest precludes any diligent inquiry to determine which individual is/are best suited totestify, and Plaintiff objects on that basis.

Respectfully submitted,MAISEL &ASSOCIATES

By: /s/Robert J. SpinazzolaRobert J. SpinazzolaAttorney for PlaintiffMAISEL &ASSOCIATES161 N. Clark Suite 800Chicago, Illinois 60601312-458-6500ARDC # 6181417


EXHIBIT C


A ttoroeys at Law

311 South Wacker Drive Suite 3000 Chicago, Illinois 60606-6677 Tel312.360.6000

Matthew J. Kramer Partner Direct 312.360.6382 Fax 312.360.6594 mkramer@ freehornpeters.com

Chicago

Springfield

January 2, 2013

VIA E-MAIL and U.S. MAIL

Robert J. Spinazzola Maisel & Associates 161 North Clark Street Suite 800 Chicago, Illinois 60601

Freeborn f::r Peters LLP

Re: Travelers a/s/o Rouse v. Electrolux, Case No. 12-cv-2386

Dear Bob:

I write to discuss a few outstanding issues with respect to discovery in the Travelers als!o Rouse matter.

The first is to confirm, as we've discussed, that the 30(b)(6) depositions in this matter will take place on Monday, January 21, 2013 (Electrolux will depose Travelers' 30(b)(6) representative) and Wednesday, January 23, 2013 (Travelers will depose Electrolux's 30(b)(6) representative). An amended Notice of Deposition (changed only to reflect the new date) is attached for your reference. Please confirm that the deposition on January 23 will take place at your offices. Also, we wanted to clarify that we presently intend for the deposition of Travelers' 30(b)(6) representative to take up to six hours, as the Court allowed for one deposition in the case. If circumstances change and that is no longer the case, we will let you know.

We would also like to take the depositions of Kent and Kimberly Rouse. Notices of Depositions for both of them are enclosed with this correspondence as well. Please confirm as soon as possible, and by Friday of this week at the latest, that you will be producing the Rouses for depositions in this matter, even if the date of the depositions is later changed by agreement. Otherwise, we will serve them with thirdparty subpoenas.

Additionally, we received your objections to Electrolux's 30(b)(6) Notice. Obviously, we take issue with the validity of some of the objections, and will likely need to discuss them in more detail on a topic-by-topic basis, but, before doing so, we note that at no point in the objections do you state that you will be preparing and producing a witness to testify on those subjects notwithstanding your objections. In their current form, in fact, your objections indicate that your witness will not be prepared to testify about any of the subjects in Electrolux's Notice of Deposition. That may not have been your intent, but, in any event, we need you to clarify these


Robert J. Spinazzola January 2, 2013 Page2

Freeborn & Peters LLP

objections. We do not want to be in a position where out-of-town witnesses arrive for depositions and are not prepared to testify about legitimate subjects for discovery. Please let me know how you would like to proceed.

Finally, we received Travelers' initial document production in this matter. In addition to not being bates stamped, it does not follow any of the specifications we attached to our document requests pursuant to FED. R. Clv. P. 34(b)(l)(C). You did not object to those specifications in your responses, and, while we are willing to consider reasonable modifications, we cannot accept a hard-copy, non-unitized set with no bates numbering. Please contact me to discuss, or simply re-produce the documents according to our electronic specifications.

Thanks, Bob, and please feel free to contact me with any questions.

MJK


EXHIBIT D


LEONARD P. BASAK JOHN W. GROVE JASON M. HITCHINGS YOLANDA M. KIELAR ERIC A. KRUMDICK RICHARD LEE STEVEN M. MAHONEY ROANNE P. MAISEL SARA F. MARZULLO EVELYN R. PACINO ROBERT J. SPINAZZOLA

MAISEL & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS AT LAW

161 NORTH CLARK STREET SUITE 800

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60601 TELEPHONE (312) 458-6500 FACSIMILE (855) 821-7317

Not a Partnership or Professional Corporation

All attorneys are Employees of The Travelers Indemnity Company

And its Property Casualty Affiliates

JOSEPH R. STEIGER MICHAEL A. TYRRELL EDWARD W. ULATOSKI, JR. ANTHONY VERO MARA H. WEINSTEIN J. MICHAEL WEST** JOSEPH J. WILSON JASON R. ZAJICEK ** ALSO ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA Naperville Office Keith D. Luther Anthony J. Ritrovato

Writer’s Direct Line: 312-458-6544 Writer’s E-Mail Address: [email protected]

January 3, 2013 Matthew J. Kramer 300 S. Wacker Drive Suite 3000 Chicago, Illinois 60606 Travelers a.s.o Rouse v Electrolux, 12 CV 2386 Dear Mr. Kramer: This letter is in response to your correspondence dated January 2, 2013. I am confirming the date of January 21, 2013 for Electrolux’s Deposition of Travelers Corporate Designee, Paul E. Strombeck. Mr. Strombeck was the property adjuster who performed the damage adjustment of this loss. He will be prepared to testify on the subject of the damage adjustment for the loss at the Rouses’ home and the basis for the payment(s) made by Travelers to the Rouses. Additionally he will testify as Travelers corporate designee in response to Paragraph 21 (Travelers answers to interrogatories in this matter) and Paragraph 22 (as related to the training provided to the person handling the adjustment of the loss). It is Travelers position that it will not be producing a corporate designee to testify on the remainder of Electrolux’s requests as set forth in its Response and Objection to Electrolux’s 30(b) (6) request as served on you on December 3, 2012. I am further confirming the deposition of Electrolux’s representative for January 23, 2013 at my office. We would likewise designate this deposition for the six hour proceeding. If Travelers’ position changes in this regard I will advise you accordingly.



In terms of the deposition of Mr. and Mrs. Rouse, I do not represent them. However, I will contact them and see if I can facilitate their depositions. It may be necessary for the depositions to proceed closer to their home. I will keep the January 31st date in my calendar and see if we can make that date work. I will keep you posted. Finally, with respect to Travelers’ document production, I will have them resubmitted with Bates stampings. Please call me with any questions or concerns. Very Truly Yours, Robert J. Spinazzola


EXHIBIT E


Freeborn F7 Peters LLP

January 7, 2013

Robert J. SpinazzolaMaisel &Associates161 North Clark StreetSuite 800

AtlorneysatLaw Chicago, Illinois 60601

311 South Wacker Drive Re: Travelers a/s/o Rouse v. Electrolux, Case No. 12-2386Suite 3000Chicago, Illinois60606-6677 Dear Bob:Te1312.360.6000

Thank you for your response to our January 2 correspondence.

Matthew J. Kramer I appreciate your assistance in reaching out to the Rouses, and hope thatPartner something can be done by agreement, but I believe I will just subpoena them. WeDirect 312.360.6382Fax 312.360.6594 will be reasonably flexible on the date (likely less so on the venue, but we can talk),~emer@ but we just feel more comfortable having some official process behind our schedulingfreebornpeters.com

efforts. If you do not believe they are technically subject to the Notices, we will just

subpoena them, without prejudice to our efforts to cooperate on getting it scheduled.

c~;~Bo As to the documents, please do adhere to the specifications for electronic

Springfield productions, beyond just the bates numbering. I would be happy to discuss the

specifications with you if you have questions. But we want to be able to load the

documents electronically into our document-review program, with metadata, as

opposed to scanning and coding them manually.

Finally, we cannot agree to proceed with the scheduled 30(b)(6) depositions,

given the scope of your objections to our notice. We would like to schedule a

conference to discuss them to see if some agreement can be reached that would not

require court intervention.

As I read your objections, the primary issue in dispute appears to be the

relevance of the noticed topics. As noted below, we do not believe those objections

to be well taken, but, in the interest of narrowing the issues in dispute, we would

respond to the non-relevance objections as follows:

• Regarding any objections as to vagueness, please identify specifically what

you find to be vague and we will clarify the topic. We note that you took

specific exception to the terms "analysis" and "testing," and such terms

should be interpreted to have their ordinary, commonly understood meanings.

If further ambiguity remains in atopic-specific context, please let us know.


Freeborn ~ Peters t,LPJanuary 7, 2013Page 2

~ Regarding objections as to the absence of a specified time period, most topicsare limited, by their terms, to the preceding ten (10) years. We see no basisfor your claim that information from that time period is "neither relevant nor

designed to lead to relevant information." We can discuss those objections on

a topic-by-topic basis if necessary. We note also that many of the topics as towhich atime-period objection was raised do not have a temporal component.

• Regarding any objection as to Electrolux seeking discovery from Travelers'"subsidiary or affiliate companies who are not parties to this action," pleaselet us know if you believe that the noticed topic actually does call forinformation from a Travelers subsidiary or affiliate company. As a generalmatter, of course, Travelers cannot cite technicalities about information"belonging to" or "residing with" any of what we assume to be its numerouswholly owned subsidiaries and affiliates to avoid providing discoverableinformation. Such information would certainly be regarded as being within

Travelers' possession, custody, or control, and thus subject to discovery. But

we can address those concerns on a topic-by-topic basis, to the extent they areactually implicated.

• Regarding objections as to potential privilege, we assume you willacknowledge that no topic, on its face, calls for production of privilegedinformation. Your objection for the record on that basis is noted, and, to the

extent a question at the examination calls for privileged information, weassume you will instruct your witness accordingly.

• Regarding objections as to confidentiality, we assume that entry of theAgreed Protective Order has assuaged those concerns. The Protective Ordercontains a detailed procedure for designating testimony from a deposition ascontaining confidential, proprietary, andlor trade-secret material.

• We are unsure as to how to respond to the objection that a "request fails to

identify subject matter other than the physical act of the production of anydocuments." These are not requests to produce documents. They are topicson which a witness should be prepared to testify. Please clarify the nature of

this objection.

• Regarding objections on the grounds that the topics seek expert discovery,please construe the requests to call for factual testimony only. Again, weassume you will acknowledge that none call, on their face, for the provisionof expert testimony.

Assuming that we can reach an understanding as to the issues raised above,

then, the relevance of the listed topics would be the only issue remaining for


Freeborn ~ Peters t,t,PJanuary 7, 2013Page 3

discussion. As a preliminary matter, we will not belabor the point about thepermissive nature of discovery in federal courts. You are aware of that standard andits applicability here, as well as of the appreciably low threshold for relevance duringthe discovery phase.

The core issues in dispute, as you note in your objections, are whether theElectrolux-manufactured clothes dryer in the Rouse's home was defective, and, if so,whether Electrolux should be responsible for the damages that Travelers claims tohave incurred as a result of compensating its insured. The objected-to discovery goesdirectly to those issues. To give just some examples:

• The manner in which Travelers values the risks of dryer fires generally goesto the issue of whether Electrolux-manufactured dryers are inherentlydefective. If every premium reflects an inherent and systemic risk that dryerscatch on fire, for example, it makes it less likely that there is anythinginherently or uniquely "defective" about the Electrolux dryer. Electrolux isentitled to explore issues along those lines.

• Travelers' procedures for valuing risk, including the extent to which thosevaluations do or do not take account of a homeowner's Electrolux dryer, goesto the issue of whether the dryer has an inherent defect, i.e. ,one that would bepresent in any Electrolux-manufactured dryer. Does Travelers ask if itshomeowners use Electrolux dryers? If so, do those homeowners payincreased premiums? Why or why not? Relatedly, does Travelers issuehomeowner policies that exclude coverage for Electrolux-manufactureddryers? These issues are certainly within the realm of permissible discoveryat this stage.

• All topics that relate to Travelers advising its policyholders on proper dryermaintenance are critical subjects of discovery. Electrolux has longmaintained that the ultimate cause of dryer fires is improper maintenance.We understand Travelers' position to be otherwise. At a minimum, thedegree to which Travelers believes maintenance to be significant, and theextent to which it advises its policyholders of that belief, is highly relevant.

As discussed above, these are significant issues for Electrolux, and, while we of

course remain hopeful that we can reach an agreement amongst ourselves, we willaddress these concerns to the Court if necessary. In the interim, it is probably mostadvisable to plan on continuing the 30(b)(6) depositions until these issues areresolved.


Freeborn ~ Peters LLPJanuary 7, 2013Page 4

Please let us know times during the next few days when you will be available

to discuss the relevance objections—or any other objections—in greater detail and on

a topic-by-topic basis. Thank you.

Sincerely yours

Matthew J. gamer

MJK/pcs


EXHIBIT F


From: Kramer, Matthew J.To: "Spinazzola,Robert J ([email protected])"Subject: Travelers a/s/o RouseDate: Monday, January 14, 2013 9:36:52 AM

Bob-

Thanks for speaking with me on Friday. To confirm, you are going to send me a written summary of your position on the disputed 30(b)(6)topics and we are going to attempt to continue the discussion in an effort to arrive at an agreedresolution. Also, we agreed to continue both of the previously scheduled 30(b)(6) depositions until theseissues are resolved, and no depositions will be taking place next week. Please let me know if you have any questions. Matthew J. KramerFreeborn & Peters LLP311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000Chicago, Illinois 60606P: (312) 360-6382M: (312) 909-1629F: (312) 360-6594E: [email protected]


mailto:/O=FREEBORN AND PETERS/OU=CHICAGO/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MKRAMER


EXHIBIT G


From: Spinazzola,Robert JTo: Kramer, Matthew J.Subject: RE: Travelers a/s/o RouseDate: Monday, January 14, 2013 12:41:27 PM

Matt: Per our telephone conference on Friday, Travelers position regarding the original and amended 30(b)(6) requests propounded by Electrolux is set forth fully in its Objections thereto. As stated in theseobjections and as we discussed, it is Travelers position that a number of these requests lack relevancyto this case as established by the pleadings or are otherwise premature. To highlight: Topics 1-6, 8, 10, 11: seek information concerning Travelers underwriting policies, riskassessments, insurance policy exclusions, claim histories, histories of subrogation law suits and firstparty suits against Travelers. None of these requests relate to nor could they ever lead to evidenceconcerning the cause of this fire, any problems with the subject dryer that caused this particular fire orany issue relating to the damage payment made to the Rouses. The same relevance problem wouldexist with request topics 13-20 (Blog Sites). At best the requests concerning the Blog Sites arepremature until it is determined whether the Rouses ever reviewed these sites. Similarly, a Travelersemployee’s attendance at a seminar discussing dryer fires as requested in Topic 12 may invade expertand work product privileges and is otherwise objectionable on the basis of relevance. Quite frankly,Travelers conduct other than its damage adjustment is not at issue in this case. The conduct ofElectrolux and the Rouses alone are at issue here as stated in the pleading filed. Topics 7, 24 and 25 concern spoliation when no allegation or concern of spoliation has been raised todate. At best these requests are premature. Topics 9 and 10 seek Travelers testing of dryers. These requests invade work product as well asconsulting and testifying expert privileges. Any relevant testing (if any occurred) would come out inexpert disclosures and depositions as it relates to Electrolux products. A request for a person with knowledge as to the decision of when to file a lawsuit clearly invadesTravelers work product privilege. A number of the requests are additionally objectionable on the basis of time frame. For example,Topics 1, 6-11, 22, 24 and 25 specify no time period whatsoever. Request Topics 2-5, 12, 13-20 arenot limited by the date of the loss. Again Travelers position is fully set forth in its objections. By highlighting our discussion, Travelers isnot waiving any other ground for objecting to the 30 (b) (6) discovery filed by Electrolux in this case todate. Travelers remains willing to produce a representative to testify on its answers to interrogatories, itsdamage adjustment, and the training received by that damage adjuster. Let me know if you have questions or if you wish to discuss this matter further. Robert J. SpinazzolaMaisel & Associates161 N. Clark Suite 800Chicago, Illinois 60601312-458-6544Fax: [email protected]




Robert J. SpinazzolaMaisel & Associates161 N. Clark Suite 800Chicago, Illinois 60601312-458-6544Fax: [email protected]

From: Kramer, Matthew J. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 9:37 AMTo: Spinazzola,Robert JSubject: Travelers a/s/o Rouse Bob-

Thanks for speaking with me on Friday. To confirm, you are going to send me a written summary of your position on the disputed 30(b)(6)topics and we are going to attempt to continue the discussion in an effort to arrive at an agreedresolution. Also, we agreed to continue both of the previously scheduled 30(b)(6) depositions until theseissues are resolved, and no depositions will be taking place next week. Please let me know if you have any questions. Matthew J. KramerFreeborn & Peters LLP311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000Chicago, Illinois 60606P: (312) 360-6382M: (312) 909-1629F: (312) 360-6594E: [email protected]

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message may contain legally privileged information intended solely for the direct addressee(s).Disclosure or use by others is strictly prohibited. Please notify the sender if you have received this message in error. IRS CIRCULAR230 DISCLAIMER: Neither this message nor the attachments hereto may be used to avoid penalties that may be imposed under theInternal Revenue Code.

Freeborn & Peters LLPwww.freebornpeters.com

==============================================================================

This communication, including attachments, is confidential, may be subject to legalprivileges, and is intended for the sole use of the addressee. Any use, duplication,disclosure or dissemination of this communication, other than by the addressee, isprohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify thesender immediately and delete or destroy this communication and all copies.


EXHIBIT H


Attorneys at Law

311 South Wacker Drive Suite 3000 Chicago, Illinois 60606-6677 Te1312.360.6000

Matthew J. Kramer Partner Direct 312.360.6382 Fax 312.360.6594 mkramer@ freebornpeters.com

Chicago

Springfield

January 23, 2013

Robert J. Spinazzola Maisel & Associates 161 North Clark Street Suite 800 Chicago, Illinois 60601


Re: Travelers a/s/o Rouse v. Electrolux, Case No. 12-2386

Dear Bob:

We were surprised and disappointed to have received your Motion to Quash yesterday. As we discussed on our call on January 11, and as I confirmed in my email of January 14, we understood the plan to be that you would attempt to group your objections into categories, send that to me in writing, and then we would continue the dialogue in an effort to try to reach an agreement. That is what I expressed in my January 14 e-mail, and you did, in fact, follow up with an e-mail summary later that day. We were in the process of preparing this correspondence in response to your e-mail when we got your Motion. To be clear, as set forth below, our attempts to reach a compromise were and remain genuine. I believe we could have claimed to have exhausted our meet-and-confer obligations after the call on Friday, but we did wish to make another good-faith attempt to narrow the issues in dispute. You should interpret this letter as a further attempt at compromise, notwithstanding the positions expressed in your Motion.

Note that have organized the letter in response to your January 14 correspondence. Also, for ease of reference, and to the extent we have offered to compromise as set forth below, attached is a revised list of topics on which we would seek testimony, and which will be the subject of our Motion to Compel if we are unable to agree.

Topics 1-6, 8, 10-11, and 13-20

You noted that these topics relate to Travelers' "underwriting policies, risk assessments, insurance policy exclusions, claim histories, histories of subrogation lawsuits and first party suits against Travelers" (Topics 1-6, 8, 10-11) and "blog sites" (13-20). Though we believe that all of the topics, as drafted, are proper and seek relevant information, we are willing to offer a compromise, as set forth below.




As to Topics 1-6, 8, 10-11, we would be willing to combine and narrow them into a single topic, which would cover Travelers' underwriting and subrogation practices and procedures, to the extent they relate specifically to homes with Electrolux clothes dryers. As to the underwriting procedures, this would include whether and to what extent the underwriting process involves any analysis of whether the homeowner owns an Electrolux dryer and, if so, what impact, if any, that fact has on pricing of the homeowner's policy (increased premiums, coverage exclusions, etc.). As it concerns subrogation, we would like to investigate the procedures employed, if any, upon learning that a fire involved an Electrolux dryer, and, specifically, whether and how those procedures differ from those employed upon learning that a fire allegedly involved another manufacturer's dryer.

This information, particularly as narrowed, is relevant to the claims or defenses at issue· here to the extent that Travelers believes the Electro lux dryer is inherently defective. We recognize that you are attempting to characterize the claims narrowly, and suggest that the only issue in the case is whether the Rouse's particular dryer malfunctioned and caused the fire at issue, but the pleadings certainly suggest otherwise. The Complaint contains numerous examples of Travelers describing supposed defects that go beyond this one single incident. First, both Paragraphs 14 and 21 list a number of putative grounds for liability under, respectively, strictliability and negligence theories, and the Complaint states that "one or more of them" could apply, which hardly suggests a case-specific analysis. Moreover, you allege a defect in the design of the dryer, which would, logically, apply to every dryer manufactured according to that allegedly defective design. You also attempt to base liability on a failure-to-warn theory, which, again, would not seem to be tailored to the Rouses individually.

We are also unable to accept Travelers' attempts to distance itself from this lawsuit, citing general law about subrogation and succeeding to the rights of the insured, and suggesting that those principles, as a matter of law, exempt Travelers from discovery in this matter. Travelers inherited whatever rights the Rouses had to bring a product-liability claim against Electrolux, but it was Travelers that made the decision to pursue that claim. Travelers is the plaintiff in this lawsuit, and Electro lux is seeking narrowly tailored discovery into its basis for doing so. No one would suggest that, had the Rouses been uninsured and brought this lawsuit themselves, the discovery Electro lux seeks would be improper areas of inquiry for the plaintiff in a lawsuit. The result should not be any different simply because the party bringing the lawsuit is the Rouse's subrogee.

Ultimately, it is clear that Travelers comports itself as if it believes Electro lux dryers to be inherently defective (as opposed to defective simply in this one particular instance), and that, accordingly, Travelers does not contend that the alleged fire at the


Robert J. Spinazzola January 23, 2013 Page 3


Rouse residence was an isolated event. If we are mistaken, and Travelers is willing to clarify as much on the record, please let us know. Otherwise, we would like to explore in the deposition issues such as how Travelers values and prices risk given knowledge that a homeowner owns an Electrolux-manufactured dryer, and how it handles claims and potential subrogation issues given knowledge that an Electrolux dryer was involved in the fire. These issues certainly tend to make claims about purported defects in the Rouse's dryer more or less likely, and therefore meet the very low threshold for relevance under the Federal Rules. As modified in this correspondence, we believe we have appropriately narrowed the issue.

In view of this characterization of the issues in dispute, however, we must insist that Travelers produce a witness to testify as to what you describe as "blog cites" (Topics 13-20), but are probably more accurately termed specific examples of Travelers cautioning its policyholders about dryer maintenance, particularly with respect to cleaning lint from the dryer venting. This is a central issue in the case, as Electro lux has long maintained that it is the lack of proper cleaning and maintenance that causes dryer fires, as opposed to any defect in design or manufacturing. These web pages suggest that Travelers agrees that cleaning and maintenance bear, at least to some degree, on the risk of fire. We are entitled to probe the background of those webpages, including the process by which they came to be included in Travelers' official communications. We must disagree with your suggestion that the requests are premature until it is shown that the Rouses read those webpages, or that the requests could become moot if the Rouses were to testify that they did clean the dryer venting. We would be surprised to learn that they did read the webpages, in fact, but, in any event, whether they read them is not the issue. It is the fact that Travelers (the plaintiff in the lawsuit) published them that is relevant. Whether and to what extent Travelers agrees with one of Electrolux's principal defenses-and its basis for doing so-is certainly within the realm of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules.

Topics 7 and 24-25

You characterize all three of these topics as "concem[ing] spoliation," and state that they are premature because no claim of spoliation has been made in this case. Though we would suggest that the topics are a bit broader than that, provided you will not object to re-opening the 30(b)(6) deposition-including agreeing to any request seeking leave of court for additional deposition time, if necessary-in the event that Electrolux does make such allegations after further discovery, we will agree to strike without prejudice those three topics.



Topics 9 and 10


You describe these topics as relating to testing of dryers, and object on the basis that these topics "invade work product as well as consulting and testifying expert privileges." We believe we can clarify the topic to hopefully negate these objections. First, we will not seek testimony about your expert(s)' examination(s) of the dryer at issue here. We will depose your testifying expert at a later time, obviously, but that is not the type of testimony we seek here. Likewise, we do not seek anything legitimately protected by the work-product doctrine, and if any testimony at the deposition threatened to invade that, we would expect you to object and instruct your witness not to answer on that basis, though we would of course be entitled to probe the basis for that objection.

Similar to the issues described above, we are concerned about any examinations of Electro lux dryers that have taken place outside of the context of the dryer at issue here--or the context of other litigation-and what the results of those examinations were. For example, has Travelers purchased an Electrolux dryer and examined it for purposes of underwriting or pricing risk? This again goes to the issue of an inherent defect, particularly a design defect as alleged in the Complaint. If a dryer was examined outside of the context of a specific lawsuit, and that examination tended to inform (in either a positive or negative way) Travelers' belief that Electrolux dryers are inherently defective, Electrolux is entitled to probe the results ofthose examinations. This is the information requested in Topic 9. As to Topic 10, which currently seeks information about testing of dryers manufactured by other dryer manufacturers, we would be willing to modify it to seek information about other manufacturers' dryers only to the extent that the Electrolux dryer differs from the others in a manner that Travelers believes to be relevant to the supposed defects. That is, Electrolux is seeking information about the results of Travelers' examination of Electrolux dryers, including, without limitation, whether and how the examinations reveal Electrolux dryers to differ from those manufactured by other manufacturers in a manner that Travelers believes to bear on any defects allegedly present in the Electrolux dryer.

Topic 23

Topic 23 seeks information about "[t]he timing of Travelers' decision to pursue subrogation in this matter, the individuals that participated in the decision, and any policies, procedUres, or claim handling guidelines triggered by Travelers' decision." I assume this is what you are referring to when you object to providing "a person with knowledge as to the decision of when to file a lawsuit," which you state "clearly invades Travelers work product privilege." Respectfully, as referenced a few times above, we are entitled to, at a minimum, probe the basis for any such




privilege assertion, and we would suggest that the proper procedure is to prepare a witness on the non-privileged aspects of this topic, and object if and when a question actually calls for the disclosure of privileged information. And there are, in fact, numerous non-privileged elements to this topic. It relates generally to the subrogation issues referenced above. If Travelers employs a particular procedure upon learning that a fire involved an Electrolux dryer-including sending the matter straight to subrogation without further analysis because of a presumed defect-that is a subject about which Electrolux is entitled to take discovery. Put differently, nothing in the Complaint suggests that Travelers engaged in an isolated analysis of the Rouse's dryer, and independently determined to pursue subrogation, without any institutional bias about Electrolux dryers being inherently defective. Surely someone in the subrogation process is relying and acting upon existing information or beliefs about Electrolux dryers, and that is the information sought in this topic. How Travelers responds to learning that an Electrolux dryer was involved in a fire bears on the question of whether it is inherently defective.

Time Period Objections

Finally, you raised some objections with respect to the time period that the topics cover. I believe the modified topics described in this letter, if we can agree to them, do not implicate a temporal element. Please let me know if you disagree.

Deposition o(Jonathan Vesey

As I mentioned in a voicemail to you this afternoon, I would like to make sure we exhaust our meet-and-confer obligations concerning the deposition of Jonathan Vesey. Though we understand him to be a very senior Travelers employee, you indicated that he would need to be subpoenaed and that the Notice of Deposition we sent was not sufficient. You indicated you would not accept service of the subpoena on his behalf and, though we are in the process of serving him through formal means, you said you will not produce him in any event "on the basis that his work on this claim is protected by the work product and attorney-client privileges."

This is the first time we have encountered a refusal to produce a witness based on the blanket, pre-deposition objection that everything he could possibly say is protected by the work product or attorney-client privileges. This objection would be questionable even were Mr. Vesey an attorney-which, to our understanding, he is not-and it is even more difficult to accept here. As we stated, we see no basis for refusing to produce a witness on this basis, and we believe he should be produced subject to your right to object and instruct him not to answer in response to any question that would legitimately elicit privileged testimony.




Please contact me if you believe your position on Mr. Vesey is subject to change, otherwise, we will include that as part of our motion to compel.

Please let me know at your earliest convenience we have an agreement on the topics as modified in this correspondence and in the attached list. Note that, we would expect that, if we can reach an agreement on these topics, you will produce documents that relate to them, to the extent earlier objected to and/or not produced. Please confirm that to be the case as well. If we are unable to resolve these issues, we will be filing our motion to compel on Friday.

Sincerely yours,

~~1) MJK/pcs




Revised List o(30(b)(6) Topics In Travelers a/s/o Rouse v. Electrolux

1. Travelers' underwriting and subrogation practices and procedures, to

the extent such practices and procedures refer to, reflect, or otherwise relate to

Electrolux-manufactured dryers, including, by way of example but not limitation, the

extent to which any belief on Travelers' part that Electrolux-manufactured dryers

(including the dryer at issue in this litigation) are inherently defective bears on

Travelers' decisions regarding whether to accept risk, or the manner in which

Travelers values and prices such risk given such beliefs, as well as the procedures

employed upon learning that a fire involved an Electrolux-manufactured dryer.

2. Travelers' analysis, including testing, of clothes dryers manufactured

by Electrolux.

3. Travelers' testing of clothes dryers manufactured by manufacturers

other than Electrolux, to the extent the Electrolux-manufactured dryers differ from

those manufactured by other manufacturers in a manner that Travelers believes to

bear on any alleged defect in Electrolux-manufactured dryers.

4. The attendance of any of Travelers' employees, former employees,

agents, contractors, or subcontractors in any conference, seminar, or meeting from

2002 to the present in which Electrolux clothes dryer fires were discussed, including,

but not limited to, meetings held by the National Association of Subrogation Lawyers

and any internal seminars or meetings.


Robert J. Spinazzola , January 23, 2013 Page 8


5. Travelers' webpage titled "Winter maintenance tips: Keep the chill

out and safely enjoy the season," published at https://www.travelers.com/prepare-

preventlhome-property!home-maintenance-tips/winter-home-maintenance-tips.aspx,

including its creation, production, authorization for publication, and the basis,

including testing, for any claims or statements made on the webpage regarding

clothes dryers, clothes dryer maintenance, the cleaning of clothes dryers, exhaust

ducts, lint, and fire.

6. Travelers' webpage titled "Spring maintenance tips: Spring ahead

with these home maintenance tips," published at https://www.travelers.com/prepare-

prevent/home-property!home-maintenance-tips/spring-home-maintenance-tips.aspx,




ducts, lint, dust, and "pieces of material."

7. Travelers' webpage titled "Summer maintenance tips: Enjoy longer

days and warmer nights while protecting your investment," published at

https:/ /www.travelers.com/ prepare-prevent/home-property !home-maintenance-

tips/summer-home-maintenance-tips.aspx, including its creation, production,

authorization for publication, and the basis, including testing, for any claims or

statements made on the webpage regarding clothes dryers, clothes dryer maintenance,

the cleaning of clothes dryers, exhaust ducts, lint, dust, and "pieces of material."




8. Travelers' webpage titled "Fall maintenance tips: Prepare your home

for cooler days ahead," published at https://www.travelers.com/prepare-

preventlhome-property/home-maintenance-tips/fall-home-maintenance-tips.aspx,




ducts, lint, dust, and "pieces of material."

9. Travelers' webpage titled "Prevent common household fires,"

published at https:/ /www. travelers. com/prepare-prevent/home-property/fire/fire-

preventable-scenarios.aspx, including its creation, production, authorization for

publication, and the basis, including testing, for any claims or statements made on the

webpage regarding the statement "clothes dryers are another common source of

house fires," dryer vent installation, dryer vent cleaning, following directions, lint,

and lint filters.

10. Travelers' web blog titled "Dryer Vent Safety Factors," published at

http://www. thetravelers.net/blog/dryer-vent-safety-factors, including its creation,

production, authorization for publication, and the basis, including testing, for any

claims or statements made on the webpage regarding clothes dryers, clogged dryer

vents, fires, "breakdowns," lint, vent ducts, vent conduit, duct material, lint filters,

and dryer installation manuals.



11. Travelers' "Fire Safety


Game," located online at

https:/ /www. travelers.com/ personal-insurance/home-insurance/safety-

game/firegame.html, including its creation, production, authorization for publication,

and the basis, including testing, for any claims or statements made regarding the

statement "recent studies indicate that dryers can be a major fire hazard," dryer

exhaust ducts, dryer exhaust housing, metal ducts, plastic ducts, leaving home or

going to bed while the dryer is on, and lint.

12. Any other articles, blogs, letters, audio recordings, video recordings,

or any other documents regarding clothes dryer fires, clothes dryer maintenance, and

clothes dryer cleaning prepared by Travelers from 2002 to the present, including all

drafts and revisions.

13. Travelers' answers to Interrogatories in this matter.

14. The training of the persons handling the adjustment and investigation

of this claim on Travelers' behalf or on behalf of a related Travelers company.

15. The timing of Travelers' decision to pursue subrogation in this matter,

the individuals that participated in the decision, and any policies, procedures, or

claim handling guidelines triggered by Travelers' decision.


EXHIBIT I


From: Kramer, Matthew J.To: "Spinazzola,Robert J ([email protected])"Subject: Discovery IssuesDate: Friday, January 25, 2013 6:32:16 PM

Bob- You mentioned yesterday that Travelers is considering a counter-proposal of some kind regardingthe 30(b)(6) discovery. We will be happy to consider anything you might send in that regard, but,unless your proposal is such that we can agree to it immediately, we will, in order to keep currentwith the Court’s schedule, be filing a Motion to Compel on Monday. Please let me know if youhave any further information in that regard. It is my understanding that Mr. Vesey was served with a subpoena yesterday at Travelers’ offices inWaukesha. Please do convey to Travelers that we were very disappointed to have to take thatstep, and would view even less favorably having to go to Wisconsin to enforce the subpoena. Please also convey that we would seek sanctions for having to move to compel over what are quiteclearly improper objections. Privilege has to be asserted on a question-by-question basis, and, aswe discussed yesterday, there are numerous non-privileged topics that could be discussed duringMr. Vesey’s deposition in any event. Indeed, an outright refusal to produce a witness for adeposition is, rightfully, almost impossible to justify under the Federal Rules. See, e.g., AffiliatedFM Ins. Co. v. Neosho Const. Co., No. Civ. A. 98-2414, 1999 WL 445704, at *3 (characterizing anorder barring the taking of a deposition as “a drastic action” and “most extraordinary relief” forwhich it is “exceedingly difficult” to demonstrate a basis) (D. Kan. June 24, 1999) (citationsomitted). The parties resisting the depositions in Affiliated were actually ordered to show causewhy they should not be sanctioned. Id. at *4. We would urge Travelers to reconsider its positionon that deposition and produce Mr. Vesey on February 6. Have a nice weekend. Matthew J. KramerFreeborn & Peters LLP311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000Chicago, Illinois 60606P: (312) 360-6382M: (312) 909-1629F: (312) 360-6594E: [email protected]


mailto:/O=FREEBORN AND PETERS/OU=CHICAGO/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN=MKRAMER


EXHIBIT J


From: Spinazzola,Robert JTo: Kramer, Matthew J.Subject: Trav a.s.o RouseDate: Monday, January 28, 2013 9:29:13 AM

Matt: Travelers is still in the process of preparing a discovery offer. Travelers understands that Electroluxmay file a motion to compel if Travelers is unable to communicate this offer before 1:30PM today. Anyissues in your motion that are resolved by Travelers’ offer can be withdrawn from the hearing onWednesday. As soon as I have the Travelers offer I will communicate it. Robert J. SpinazzolaMaisel & Associates161 N. Clark Suite 800Chicago, Illinois 60601312-458-6544Fax: [email protected]

==============================================================================

This communication, including attachments, is confidential, may be subject to legalprivileges, and is intended for the sole use of the addressee. Any use, duplication,disclosure or dissemination of this communication, other than by the addressee, isprohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify thesender immediately and delete or destroy this communication and all copies.




IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS...