Webcore-Obayashi Joint Venture v. Zurich American Insurance Company

Filing 142

ORDER OVERRULING ZURICH'S OBJECTION AND ADOPTING SPECIAL MASTER'S ORDER NO. 2 granting 105 Administrative Motion. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/11/2022)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

WEBCORE-OBAYASHI JOINT
VENTURE,
Plaintiff,

9
v.
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE
COMPANY, et al.,

Case No. 19-cv-07799-SI
ORDER OVERRULING ZURICH’S
OBJECTION AND ADOPTING
SPECIAL MASTER’S ORDER NO. 2
Re: Dkt. Nos. 104, 105, 106, 137

Defendants.

12
13
14

In an order filed December 2, 2021, the Special Master found that one of Zurich’s documents

15

was not protected by the attorney-client privilege and he ordered Zurich to produce an unredacted

16

copy of the document to Webcore-Obayashi. Dkt. No. 104. Zurich objects to the order, contending

17

that the Special Master made “clear errors in at least three material factual findings,” and that the

18

Special Master relied on those errors to conclude that the document was not privileged. Dkt. No.

19

106.

20

The Court reviews the Special Master’s findings of fact for clear error.

See Order

21

Appointing Martin Quinn As Special Master To Oversee Discovery And Referring Discovery

22

Dispute. Dkt. No. 85, ¶ 16. “Clear error is deferential . . . requiring a definite and firm conviction

23

that a mistake has been made.” Husain v. Olympic Airways, 316 F.3d 829, 835 (9th Cir. 2002)

24

(internal quotes and cites omitted; emphasis added throughout unless otherwise indicated). If the

25

findings are “plausible, in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the [reviewing] court cannot

26

reverse even if it is convinced it would have found differently.” Id. The Special Master’s

27

conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Order Appointing Martin Quinn As Special Master

28

To Oversee Discovery And Referring Discovery Dispute. Dkt. No. 85, ¶ 16. “However, if the

1

application of the law to the facts requires an inquiry that is ‘essentially factual,’ review is for clear

2

error.” Husain, 316 F.3d at 835.
The Court has reviewed the Special Master’s Order No. 2, Zurich’s objection thereto,

4

Webcore-Obayashi Joint Venture’s reply, and the record submitted by the parties. Applying the

5

relevant standard of review, and for the reasons set forth in Webcore-Obayashi’s reply, the Court

6

OVERRULES Zurich’s objection and adopts the Special Master’s Order No. 2. The Court finds

7

that the Special Master’s factual findings regarding Ms. Franklin’s declaration and deposition

8

testimony are plausible and supported. The Court also agrees with the Special Master’s findings

9

regarding the absence of certain evidence that would show that the information at issue was

10

requested for Ms. Frost or to enable Ms. Frost to provide legal advice and counsel, including the

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

3

notable absence of a declaration from the lawyer, Ms. Frost. On the whole, the Court finds no clear

12

error in the Special Master’s factual findings, nor in the legal conclusions he draws from them.

13

Zurich is directed to comply with the Special Master’s Order immediately.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17
18

Dated: January 11, 2022

______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2