## Facts

- Geneyne Hart, insured under an automobile policy issued by Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, sought personal-injury protection (PIP) benefits for medical expenses after an automobile accident.
- Nationwide paid PIP benefits but reduced payments based on internal regional charge data to determine what it considered “reasonable and necessary” medical expenses.
- Hart alleged Nationwide used a common practice that systematically underpaid PIP benefits in violation of the insurance contract and Delaware law.
- Hart pursued the case as a putative class action on behalf of other insureds whose PIP benefits were allegedly reduced using the same methodology.
- Before moving for class certification, Hart served discovery seeking Nationwide’s internal PIP claims files and related information to determine how reductions were made, how often they occurred, and whether uniform policies applied.
- Nationwide objected that requests for broad categories (including all PIP claim files) were overbroad, unduly burdensome, and insufficiently connected to Hart’s individual claim.

## Issues

1. Whether a putative class representative may obtain pre-certification discovery of an insurer’s PIP claim files and related data to develop evidence supporting Rule 23 class-certification requirements.
2. Whether the breadth of the requested discovery (including all PIP claim files) required denial or significant limitation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 based on relevance, proportionality, and burden.

## Decision

- The court granted Hart’s motion to compel in substantial part.
- The court held that pre-certification discovery is permitted when reasonably necessary to develop evidence for Rule 23 requirements.
- The court found the requested materials relevant to class-certification issues, including whether Nationwide applied uniform reduction practices affecting the proposed class.
- The court declined to bar discovery solely because it extended beyond Hart’s individual claim, recognizing broader relevance in a putative class action.
- The court required production with reasonable limitations to address burden and proportionality concerns (e.g., tailoring by time period, claim characteristics, or sampling/phased production).

## Legal Principles

- A plaintiff seeking class certification must be given a fair opportunity to obtain discovery reasonably necessary to support Rule 23(a) and (when applicable) Rule 23(b) requirements.
- In a putative class action, relevance for discovery includes information bearing on commonality, typicality, and predominance, not only facts unique to the named plaintiff.
- Under Rule 26, courts balance the probative value of requested discovery against the burden or expense of production and may order tailored, staged, or sample production to mitigate undue burden rather than deny discovery categorically.

## Conclusion

The court permitted broad pre-certification discovery into Nationwide’s PIP claim handling practices because the information was central to establishing Rule 23 requirements, while limiting production through tailored measures to satisfy Rule 26 burden and proportionality constraints.


Hart v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 270 F.R.D. 166 (D. Del. 2010)