Travelers Property Casualty Company of America et al v. Centex Homes

Filing 142

ORDER re 118 Joint Discovery Letter Briefre Motion to Compel Un-Redacted Claim Notes filed by Centex Homes. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 01/25/2013. (dmrlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14

ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL UNREDACTED
CLAIMS NOTES

CENTEX HOMES,

15

No. C 11-03638 DMR

Defendant.
___________________________________/

16
17

On December 18, 2012, the parties filed a joint letter setting forth their disputes regarding

18

Plaintiff Travelers Property Casualty Co.’s (“Travelers”) production of claim notes which Travelers

19

had redacted based on its assertions of the attorney-client privilege and work product protection.

20

[Docket No. 118.] On January 10, 2013, the court held a hearing on the dispute. The court

21

subsequently ordered Travelers to amend its privilege log to support its assertions of privilege and to

22

file the same by 12:00 p.m. on January 17, 2013, and further ordered the parties to immediately meet

23

and confer regarding the amended log. The court instructed Defendant Centex Homes (“Centex”) to

24

identify any remaining disputed entries by 5:00 p.m. that day. [Docket No. 127.]

25

On January 17, 2013, Centex filed a letter identifying a number of disputed entries on

26

Travelers’ amended privilege log. [Docket No. 130.] On January 18, 2013, the court held a

27

telephonic hearing regarding the disputed entries. The parties stated that although they had reached

28

further agreements, they continued to dispute the discoverability of 40 entries on the revised

1

privilege log and sought a ruling by the court. The court ordered Travelers to submit unredacted

2

versions of the disputed documents for in camera review by January 22, 2013. [Docket No. 132.]

3

Travelers timely submitted the documents, and the court conducted its in camera review.

4

The court finds that Travelers’ proposed redactions on document TRV-016263 are proper, because

5

the redacted information is subject to the mediation privilege.

6

With respect all of the remaining pages submitted by Travelers, the court finds that Travelers

7

seeks to redact information that is properly subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or work

8

product protection. However, some of Travelers’ redactions are overbroad and include information

9

that is not privileged and/or protected. Therefore, Travelers is ordered to revise its redactions so that

11

019014 as examples of proper redactions. Travelers is ordered to produce documents in

12

conformance with this order by no later than January 31, 2013.

Dated: January 25, 2013

17

Ryu

RT

18

ER

H

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

LI

DONNA M. RYU onna M.
eD
Ju Magistrate Judge
United Statesdg

A

16

D

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

R NIA

15

S DISTRICT
TE
C
TA

FO

IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNIT
ED

14

S

13

RT
U
O

For the Northern District of California

only the monetary amounts are redacted. The court points to documents TRV-019013 and TRV-

NO

United States District Court

10

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C