Here are the very short versions of everyone’s papers.
Insurance Dept’s Motion
We don’t want to investigate or enforce and you can’t make us.
State Farm’s/Auto One’s Motion
State Farm sidesteps the issue of whether or not its SIU personnel is qualified. It more or less says that if there is a problem, Insurance Dept should do something about it. I might be wrong, and I’ll correct myself if I am, but I don’t believe that there is one sentence in State Farm’s motion saying that its SIU personal are indeed properly qualified under the insurance law. Also, it wants the case severed as to each defendant. State Farm cites to King’s Medical Supply Inc. v. GEICO Cas. Ins. Co., 14 Misc 3d 136A (App. Term, 2nd, 2007) for the proposition that a trial on the issues presented would be unwieldy. But it does not address Globe Surgical Supply v GEICO Ins. Co., 2008 NY Slip Op 10583 (App. Div., 2nd, 2008), where the Appellate Division rejected a similar and more analagous argument made by Geico.
Again, I’ll correct myself if I’m wrong, but at no point in the motion papers does it state that there ever was a legitimate 
reason to request EUOs or that they weren’t attempting to harass the providers. They are either conceding that what plaintiff is complaining about actually happened or, that even if they did what plaintiff alleges, no matter how grievous1 or illegal, the Insurance Dept cannot be compelled to do anything about it.
NICB’s Motion
NICB and its Investigators don’t need to be licensed.
————–
1. See, Star Wars: The Clone Wars. See also, Wookiepedia.