Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. Hedlund et al

Filing 16

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/1/16 ORDERING plaintiff's motion for a protective order 11 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; No later than 7/30/16, plaintiff shall produce to defendants materials from the entire c laim file (including post-12/1/12 materials) that address coverage issues and concerns (i.e., whether plaintiff would potentially be liable beyond the Policy limits) and that do not invade the attorney-client privilege or the attorney-work product do ctrine with respect to any communications with independent coverage counsel. If any documents are withheld pursuant to a claimed privilege, plaintiff shall serve a privilege log contemporaneously with its production of documents; If plaintiff determines that additional time is necessary to comply with this order, the parties shall meet and confer, and submit a stipulation and proposed order for the court's consideration. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,

13

ORDER
v.

14
15

No. 2:16-cv-352-MCE-KJN

SARAH MARIE HEDLUND, et al.,

16
Defendants.

17
18
19

Presently pending before the court is plaintiff’s motion for a protective order. (ECF No.

20

11.) On June 20, 2016, the parties filed a joint statement regarding their discovery disagreement

21

pursuant to Local Rule 251. (ECF No. 14.)1 Thereafter, on June 30, 2016, the court entertained

22

oral argument with respect to the motion. At the June 30, 2016 hearing, attorney Stephen Shaner

23

appeared on behalf of plaintiff, and attorney Catia Saraiva appeared on behalf of defendants.

24
1

25
26
27
28

The parties also filed a brief in support of the motion, an opposition brief, and a reply brief.
Pursuant to Local Rule 251, the court only considered the briefing contained in the parties’ joint
statement and the declarations submitted contemporaneously with that joint statement. In any
event, the parties’ other briefs were largely duplicative of the parties’ joint statement. In any
future discovery dispute, the parties shall comply with Local Rule 251’s briefing requirements for
discovery motions (which differ from the briefing requirements outlined in Local Rule 230 with
respect to other civil motions), and shall not submit excess briefing.
1

1
2
3
4

After carefully considering the parties’ written briefing and oral argument, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order (ECF No. 11) is GRANTED IN PART and
DENIED IN PART.

5

2. No later than July 30, 2016, plaintiff shall produce to defendants materials from the

6

entire claim file (including post-December 1, 2012 materials) that address coverage

7

issues and concerns (i.e., whether plaintiff would potentially be liable beyond the

8

Policy limits) and that do not invade the attorney-client privilege or the attorney-work

9

product doctrine with respect to any communications with independent coverage

10

counsel. If any documents are withheld pursuant to a claimed privilege, plaintiff shall

11

serve a privilege log contemporaneously with its production of documents.

12

3. If plaintiff determines that additional time is necessary to comply with this order, the

13

parties shall meet and confer, and submit a stipulation and proposed order for the

14

court’s consideration.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 1, 2016

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2