Bucci et al v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Pasco Bucci and Marie Bucci, as the
Administrator of the Estate of Anna Bucci,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Progressive Casualty Insurance Company,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 1:25-cv-00263-MSM-AEM
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting
Defendant’s Motion to Sever and Stay Plaintiffs’ Count II and VI and Stay Discovery against
Defendant on Those Counts Pending Resolution of the Breach of Contract Counts I and V (“Motion
for Reconsideration”). 	ECF No. 17. 	Defendant Progressive Casualty Insurance Company
(“Defendant Progressive”) opposes the Motion for Reconsideration. ECF No. 18.
Plaintiffs contend that the Court should reconsider its January 27, 2026 Text Order granting
Defendant’s Motion to Sever and Stay Plaintiffs’ Bad Faith Counts II and VI and Stay Discovery
against Defendant on Those Counts Pending Resolution of the Breach of Contract Counts I and V
(ECF No. 9) (“Motion to Sever and Stay”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1). ECF
No. 17 at 4. Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that reconsideration is warranted due to the “excusable
neglect” of Plaintiff’s counsel and is necessary to avoid substantial prejudice to Plaintiffs. Id. On the
merits of the Motion to Sever and Stay, Plaintiffs argue that the bad faith counts should not be severed
and stayed due to the advanced age of Plaintiff Pasco Bucci; because of “substantial factual overlap
between the contract and bad faith claims”; for judicial economy; and because staying the bad faith
insurance claim frustrates the purpose of R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-33. Id. at 4-5. Plaintiffs attach several
exhibits, including medical reports from Dr. Richard Anderson and correspondence between
Case 1:25-cv-00263-MSM-AEM Document 20 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Plaintiffs’ counsel and Tracy Foley, an employee of Defendant Progressive. ECF Nos. 17-1, 17-2,
17-3, and 17-4.
Defendant Progressive asserts that there is “no substantive basis for reconsidering the granting
of the Motion to Sever and Stay” and “no attempt is made to address the specific concerns raised by
the Court in noticing [prior] hearings.” ECF No. 18 at 2. Defendant Progressive notes that there was
no requirement for a hearing on its Motion to Sever and Stay, so Plaintiffs’ counsel has not been
“denied, in any sense, his ability to put his arguments for opposing the Moton to Sever and Stay before
this Court.” Id. Finally, Defendant Progressive raises concerns about Plaintiffs’ efforts to introduce
“inadmissible insurer communications” by attaching them as exhibits. Id. at 3.
Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, like their objection to the Motion to Sever and Stay,
does not provide any details on the factual basis of the bad faith claims. See ECF No. 17; ECF No.
10. Instead, Plaintiffs simply state that the contract and bad faith claims “involve the same accident,
injuries, medical evidence, and insurance coverage issues.” ECF No. 17 at 4-5. Plaintiffs again have
failed to provide information that would permit the Court to make “an assessment of the degree of
overlap between bad faith and contract discovery.” Wolf v. Geico Ins. Co., 682 F. Supp. 2d 197, 200
(D.R.I. 2010). As such, Plaintiffs have not provided a basis for this Court to evaluate whether bad
faith discovery should be permitted at this time. 	Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order
Granting Defendant’s Motion to Sever and Stay Plaintiffs’ Count II and VI and Stay Discovery
against Defendants on Those Counts Pending Resolution of the Breach of Contract Counts I and V
(ECF No. 17) is DENIED.
/s/ 	Amy E. Moses
AMY E. MOSES
United States Magistrate Judge
February 24, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-00263-MSM-AEM Document 20 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>