Moran et al v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
SUSAN P. MORAN, et al., 	)
)
)
Plaintiffs, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CIV-24-880-PRW
)
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY
COMPANY,
)
)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. 45) and Motion to Stay All
Deadlines and Brief in Support (Dkt. 46). For the following reasons, the Court DENIES
both Motions (Dkts. 45, 46).
This case involves one of the several “pattern and practices” claims against State
Farm in the state and federal courts. Generally put, plaintiffs in these cases allege that State
Farm engaged in a statewide scheme to systematically deny or underpay insurance claims
for wind and hail damage to homes. Here, Plaintiffs state they have come to believe, due
to newly received discovery, that State Farm’s scheme impacted its handling of their own
insurance claim. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have filed a motion to compel (Dkt. 45),
requesting an order compelling Defendant to “(1) provide full and complete answer to
Plaintiffs’ Interrogatories and (2) produce all documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ Requests
for Production regarding the same.”1 Plaintiffs assert that the requested documents and
1 Mot. to Stay (Dkt. 46), at 1.
Case 5:24-cv-00880-PRW Document 63 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 4

2
information all relate to the alleged scheme.
On January 27, 2026, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Stay (Dkt. 46). Plaintiffs argue that
motions to compel nearly identical to theirs have been granted in state court, and State
Farm will file a writ of prohibition to prevent their enforcement with the Oklahoma
Supreme Court. Due to the anticipated writs, this Court, Plaintiffs assert, should stay all
deadlines in this matter to streamline discovery issues, prevent potential conflicts with the
Oklahoma Supreme Court, and increase judicial efficiency.
Local Civil Rule 37.1, implementing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1),
requires that “this court shall refuse to hear any [discovery motion] … unless counsel for
movant first advises the court in writing that counsel personally have met and conferred in
good faith and, after a sincere attempt to resolve differences, have been unable to reach an
accord.” Plaintiff certifies that they have conferred with Defendant’s counsel to obtain the
discovery at issue. Defendant, however, further explains that such conference occurred in
March 2025, nearly ten months before the filing of the Motion to Compel. And, following
the conference, Defendant provided additional productions relating to compromises made
at the conference.
The purpose of the meet-and-confer requirement is to encourage the parties to
resolve discovery disputes without needlessly involving the courts. The parties here must
make a genuine effort to resolve their differences before filing discovery motions. A
supposed conference occurring ten months before filing a motion to compel and before
Defendants produced additional discovery does not satisfy Local Rule 37.1.
The necessity of a genuine attempt to meet-and-confer is especially apparent in light
Case 5:24-cv-00880-PRW Document 63 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 4

3
of the Motion to Compel’s content. In its Opposition, Defendant points out numerous
misstatements made by Plaintiffs in their Motion to Compel about the substance of
interrogatories 	and 	requests 	for 	productions.2 	For 	example, 	Plaintiffs 	advance 	that
“Interrogatory Nos. 11, 14, and 16, as well as Request for Production Nos. 14, 25, 26, 27,
28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 target Documents and information related to State Farm’s
Wind-Hail Fire Model Enhancement Team[.]”3 But, as Defendant notes, only Request for
Production No. 28 addresses the Enhancement Team. Had the parties engaged in a sincere
and more recent effort to come to an agreement, these discrepancies likely would have been
identified and addressed without burdening the Court.4
Because it appears the parties have not attempted to sincerely resolve their
differences, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. 45) without prejudice
to refiling. The Court therefore DENIES the Motion to Stay (Dkt. 46) as moot.
2 Resp. (Dkt. 51), at 6–7.
3 Mot. to Comp. (Dkt. 45), at 18.
4 See Harvest Group LLC v. Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc., No. CIV-20-
00435-JD, 2024 WL 4880747, at **4–5 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 25, 2024) (denying a discovery
motion under Local Rule 37.1 where the meet-and-confer took place four months prior to
filing and the parties did not discuss all the discovery issues); Morgan v. Provident Life &
Accident Ins., Co., No. CIV-20-180-D, 2023 WL 7927784, at *1 (W.D. Okla. Nov. 16,
2023) (denying a discovery motion because “[t]he record does not show a serious attempt
by either side to meet and confer about the disclosure and discovery issues raised by
Defendant's Motion before involving the Court.”).
Case 5:24-cv-00880-PRW Document 63 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 4

4
IT IS SO ORDERED this 20th day of February 2026.
Case 5:24-cv-00880-PRW Document 63 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 4