ATAIN Specialty Insurance Company v. Sierra Pacific Management Company et al

Filing 38

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/23/2015 ORDERING that California Capital's 31 Motion to Compel is WITHDRAWN and the 7/31/2015 hearing is VACATED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

GailAnn Y. Stargardter (Bar No. 250749)
Andrew J. King (Bar No. 253962)
ARCHER NORRIS
A Professional Law Corporation
2033 North Main Street, Suite 800
Walnut Creek, CA 94596-3759
Telephone:
925.930.6600
Facsimile:
925.930.6620
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant
ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY f/k/a USF INSURANCE
COMPANY

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

12
13
14

ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY f/k/a USF INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Michigan corporation,

15

Plaintiff,

16

v.

17

SIERRA PACIFIC MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, a California corporation;
CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, a California corporation

18
19

Defendants.
20
21

CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, a California corporation

22
Counterclaimant,
23
v.
24
25

ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY f/k/a USF INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Michigan corporation

26
Counterdefendant.
27
28

No. 2:14-cv-00609-TLN-DAD
STIPULATION AND ORDER
REGARDING RESOLUTION OF
DISCOVERY DISPUTE BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF ATAIN SPECIALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY AND
DEFENDANT CALIFORNIA CAPITAL
INSURANCE COMPANY

1
2

CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, a California corporation

3

Third Party Plaintiff,

4

v.

5

JERRY LEE and BETTY LEE,

6

Third Party Defendants.

7
8

Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY f/k/a

9

USF INSURANCE COMPANY (“Atain”) and Defendant/Counterclaimant CALIFORNIA

10

CAPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY (“California Capital”), and Third Party Defendants

11

JERRY LEE and BETTY LEE (the “Lees”), through their respective counsel of record, hereby

12

enter the following stipulation regarding the resolution of a discovery dispute, and agree as

13

follows:

14

WHEREAS, Atain and California Capital have had a discovery dispute concerning

15

certain partially-redacted or withheld documents identified on Atain’s privilege logs provided in

16

connection with Atain’s responses to California Capital’s requests for production of documents

17

in this action;

18

WHEREAS, Atain withheld or partially-redacted the documents at issue on the grounds

19

that they were attorney-client privileged communications with Atain or protected attorney work

20

product regarding the filing and prosecution of this Declaratory Judgment action, and did not

21

constitute the coverage advice provided to Atain with respect to the underlying Dailey Action;

22

WHEREAS, on July 1, 2015, California Capital filed a motion to compel the production

23

of these documents (Docket No. 31), which is set to be heard by this Court on July 31, 2015;

24

WHEREAS, Atain and California Capital continue to dispute whether Atain has any

25

obligation to produce the documents at issue or submit them for in camera review, as sought in

26

California Capital’s motion to compel;

27

WHEREAS, Atain believes that all documents that are the subject of California Capital’s

28
2

*

1

motion to compel and identified on Atain’s privilege logs were properly withheld or redacted on

2

the grounds of attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine;

3

WHEREAS, after meeting and conferring regarding their dispute, in an effort to avoid

4

expending further time and resources on this dispute, and to preserve the resources of the Court,

5

Atain and California Capital have agreed to resolve the instant discovery dispute according to the

6

following terms, in lieu of proceeding with California Capital’s motion to compel.

7

STIPULATION

8

Atain, California Capital, and the Lees hereby agree to and stipulate to each of the

9
10

following:
1.

Although Atain continues to maintain that the following documents constitute

11

protected attorney-client privileged communications, in order to permanently resolve the issues

12

raised in California Capital’s motion to compel Atain will produce unredacted versions of

13

communications between Atain and its coverage counsel, GailAnn Y. Stargardter, that occurred

14

on or before March 5, 2014, the date on which Atain filed its Complaint for Declaratory

15

Judgment in this action. The documents that Atain will produce in unredacted form reflecting

16

communications between Atain and its coverage counsel were previously identified on Atain’s

17

privilege logs, and are specifically identified on Exhibit A attached hereto.

18

2.

Atain is not required to produce, and will not produce documents reflecting either

19

Ms. Stargardter’s or Andrew J. King’s work product or litigation strategy during the time they

20

drafted the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment.

21

3.

Atain is not required to produce, and will not produce, any documents reflecting

22

communications between Atain and its counsel that occurred after March 5, 2014, the date on

23

which Atain filed its Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in this action. Atain may withhold the

24

production of any and all such communications because they are protected under the attorney-

25

client privilege and the work product doctrine.

26

4.

Atain is not required to produce, and will not produce documents reflecting either

27

Ms. Stargardter’s or Mr. King’s work product or litigation strategy during the time they drafted

28

the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment or after the Declaratory Judgment Action was filed.
3

*

1

Atain may withhold the production of any and all such documents because they are protected by

2

the work product doctrine.

3

5.

The production of the pre-Declaratory Judgment action communications identified

4

in paragraph 1., above, does not waive, and shall not be deemed to waive, the protections afforded

5

by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine as to any and all communications

6

between Atain and its counsel that occurred at any time after March 5, 2014.

7

6.

Atain is not required to produce, and will not produce any internal

8

communications between and among its trial and coverage counsel or other employees at Archer

9

Norris that occurred on or before March 5, 2014, which were previously identified on Atain’s

10

privilege logs, based upon Atain’s affirmative representation that none of these communications

11

concern the coverage advice provided by Archer Norris to Atain. Instead, these communications

12

concern the drafting, preparation, and filing of the Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, and

13

remain protected under the work product doctrine.

14

7.

Atain is not required to produce, and will not produce, any internal

15

communications between and among its trial and coverage counsel or other employees at Archer

16

Norris that occurred after March 5, 2014. Any such materials will not be produced as they are

17

protected under the work product doctrine.

18

8.

Atain is not required to prepare a privilege log identifying communications

19

between Atain and its trial counsel that occurred after March 5, 2014, the date on which Atain

20

filed its Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in this action.

21

9.

California Capital hereby withdraws its pending motion to compel (Docket No.

22

31), presently set to be heard by this Court on July 31, 2015, and requests that said motion be

23

taken off calendar;

24

10.

Upon production of the documents identified in paragraph 1., above, all fact

25

discovery in this action is closed, consistent with the terms of the Pretrial Scheduling Order

26

(Docket No. 27), with the exception that California Capital reserves the right to conduct a further

27

deposition of GailAnn Y. Stargardter limited to the pre-March 5, 2014 communications that are to

28

be produced pursuant to this Stipulation.
4

*

1
2

IT IS SO STIPULATED, by and between Atain, California Capital, and the Lees, by
and through their respective counsel.

3
4

Dated: July 22, 2015

ARCHER NORRIS
/s/ Andrew J. King
GailAnn Y. Stargardter
Andrew J. King
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant
ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
f/k/a USF INSURANCE COMPANY

5
6
7
8
9

Dated: July 22, 2015

GRANT, GENOVESE & BARATTA, LLP
/s/ Lance D. Orloff (as authorized on 7/22/15)
James M. Baratta
Lance D. Orloff
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant
CALIFORNIA CAPITAL INSURANCE
COMPANY

10
11
12
13
14

Dated: July 22, 2015

/s/ Sean M. Patrick (as authorized on 7/22/15)
Ross R. Nott
Sean M. Patrick
Counsel for Third Party Defendants Jerry Lee and
Betty Lee

15
16
17
18
19
20

SPINELLI, DONALD & NOTT

ORDER
Pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 23, 2015

21
22
23
24

Ddad1\orders.civil
atain0609.stip.disc.res.ord.docx

25
26
27
28
5

*