Larson v. OneBeacon Insurance Company

Filing 44

ORDER: On or before 5/23/2013, the parties shall file a Joint Status Report indicating whether discovery of the documents listed in Paragraph Nos. 3, 5, and 6 are still in dispute. By Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix on 5/20/2013. (klyon, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Civil Action No. 12-cv-03150-MSK-KLM
DOUGLAS LARSON, in his capacity as Bankruptcy Trustee for the Estate of Cynthia
Coreyn Tester-Lamar,
Plaintiff,
v.
ONE BEACON INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
_____________________________________________________________________
ORDER
_____________________________________________________________________
ENTERED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE KRISTEN L. MIX
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s oral Motion to Compel Response to
Request for Production No. 1 (the “Motion”). In compliance with the Court’s procedures for
resolving discovery disputes, the parties contacted the Court to set a hearing on the
Motion. The Court held a telephonic discovery hearing on the Motion on March 25, 2013.
At the end of the hearing, the Court took the matter under advisement and stated it would
issue a written order.
Pursuant to Court Order [#27], Defendant submitted an amended privilege log to
Plaintiff and to the Court on April 1, 2013. [#29-1]. The amended privilege log clarified the
names of the attorneys and others to whom the alleged privileged documents pertain. On
April 2, 2013, Plaintiff identified the documents on the amended privilege log which it
sought with its oral Motion. [#29]. On April 8, 2013, Defendant submitted those documents
identified by Plaintiff to the Court for in camera review.
-1-

On April 8, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a Supplemental Brief Regarding Discovery of
Insurance Reserves [#33]. On April 11, 2013, Defendant submitted its Response [#34].
Then, on April 15, 2013, Defendant filed a Supplemental Brief Regarding Discovery of
Privileged and Protected Documents [#36]. On April 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Response
[#38]. On April 25, 2013, Defendant filed a Reply [#39]. Defendant summarizes the
privilege issues as follows:
Plaintiff seeks production of two categories of privileged/protected
documents. The first includes correspondence between [Defendant], its
counsel (WEMED), defense counsel (Peter Thomas), and Cynthia Coreyn
Tester-Lamar. The second is correspondence between [Defendant] and its
counsel, WEMED. Plaintiff is not entitled to either category of privileged
documents. The documents which [Defendant] claims are not discoverable
are referenced in the attached excerpts from [Defendant’s] privilege log.
Exhibit A contains a listing of the documents containing communications
between [Defendant] and WEMED. Exhibit B contains a listing of the
documents containing communications between [Defendant], WEMED and
Cynthia Coreyn Tester-Lamar and/or Peter Thomas.
Defendant’s Supplemental Brief Regarding Discovery of Privileged and Protected
Documents [#36] at 1-2. Defendant “requests that the Court protect from discovery all
documents referenced in Exhibits A and B.” Id. at 5. Plaintiff responds that “Plaintiff’s Oral
Motion to Compel should be granted with respect to certain of the documents in Exhibit A
and all of the documents in Exhibit B.” Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Supplemental
Brief Regarding Discovery of Privileged and Protected Documents [#38] at 1-2. However,
Plaintiff had previously identified a much larger number of documents withheld on the basis
of privilege in its Identification of Documents for Production and In Camera Review [#29]
than those listed in Exhibits A and B. Thus, it is unclear to the Court which documents are
still at issue.
Based on the parties’ briefings, the following list is the Court’s present understanding
-2-

of the documents over which the parties still have a live dispute:
1.

Regarding discovery of insurance reserves, the following two documents are
at issue: OB00164 and OB02097. [#33] at 1 n.1.

2.

Regarding Defendant’s Exhibit A [#36-1], which contains excerpts from
Defendant’s privilege log of documents containing communications between
Defendant and its counsel WEMED, the following documents appear to be
at issue: OB02246-02248, OB02283-02284, OB02285-02287, OB0231202315, OB02316-02323, OB02349, OB02451, OB02454-02456, OB0245702464, OB02471-02479, OB002480-02483, OB02484-02488, OB0248902494, OB02495-02509, OB02519-02533, OB02534-02542, OB0254302551, OB02552-02564, OB02564, OB02832, OB02847, OB02850-02852,
OB02853-02855, OB02856-02857, OB02860, OB02874-02875, OB0288002881, OB02886-02887, OB02896, OB02900-02902, OB02910-02911,
OB02944-02945, OB02953, and OB02956-02957.

3.

Regarding Defendant’s Exhibit A [#36-1], the following documents appear to
not be at issue because they were not listed on Plaintiff’s Identification of
Documents for Production and In Camera Review [#29]: OB02136,
OB02294-02295, OB02301-02304, OB02348, OB02350, OB02392-02398,
OB02406-02414, OB02439, OB02743, OB02744-02755, OB02775-02789,
OB02822, OB02955, OB02959-02967, OB02978-02979, OB02980-02982,
OB02983-02985,

OB02986-02989,

OB02998-03010,

OB03011-0313,

OB03014-03017, OB03043, OB03046-03048, OB03058-03067, OB0306803077, and OB03159.
4.

Regarding Defendant’s Exhibit B [#36-2], which contains excerpts from
-3-

Defendant’s privilege log of documents containing communications between
Defendant, WEMED, Cynthia Coreyn Tester-Lamar, and/or Peter Thomas,
the following documents appear to be at issue: OB00783, OB00784-00792,
OB01972, OB02052, OB02053, OB02055, OB02057, OB02060, OB02062,
OB02068, OB02069-02073, OB02077, OB02093, OB02123, and OB0212602127.
5.

Regarding Defendant’s Exhibit B [#36-2], the following document appears to
not be at issue because it was not listed on Plaintiff’s Identification of
Documents for Production and In Camera Review [#29]: OB03171.

6.

All other documents listed in Plaintiff’s Identification of Documents for
Production and In Camera Review [#29] appear to not be at issue, based on
the parties’ written briefs: OB02173, OB02258-69, OB02270-82, OB2288-90,
OB2291-93, OB2297-2300, OB02325, OB02465-70, and OB02510-18, as
well as all numbers lower than OB01972, except OB000164, OB00783, and
OB00784-92.

In order to clarify the parties’ discovery dispute,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, on or before May 23, 2013, the parties shall file a
Joint Status Report indicating whether discovery of the documents listed in Paragraph Nos.
3, 5, and 6 above are still in dispute.
Dated: May 20, 2013

-4-