Lima LS plc v. PHL Variable Insurance Company et al

Filing 122

DISCOVERY ORDER dated February 20, 2014. Signed by Judge Holly B. Fitzsimmons on 2/20/14.(Esposito, A.)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
LIMA LS PLC

Civ. No. 12CV1122(WWE)

v.
PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY,
PHOENIX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, THE
PHOENIX COMPANIES, INC.,
JAMES D. WEHR,
PHILIP K. POLKINGHORN, and
DONA D. YOUNG

DISCOVERY ORDER
A telephone discovery conference was held on February
20, 2014, to follow-up on the remaining issues identified
by the parties during the February 12, 2014, discovery
conference, including a protective order and a protocol for
redacting documents.
Protective Order
The parties reported that they reached an agreement on
the terms of the protective order and will submit the
proposed order to the Court for approval.

1

Protocol for Redaction of Information
Plaintiff will seek authorization from U.S. Bank for
the production to Lima of unredacted policies in which U.S.
Bank has an ownership interest.
With regard to other document production, defendants have
the burden of demonstrating, upon a specific showing, why
redaction is warranted. To that end, the parties agreed
that defendants will create a method of identifying the
reason for non-privileged redaction, including specific
codes explaining each reason for the redaction, e.g. name,
social security number, medical information.

Defendants

will provide a list of proposed redaction codes to
plaintiff and the parties will meet and confer regarding
the coding specificity and the means for coding redactions
on a document that will be helpful to plaintiff and will
streamline document production.1
Regarding “highly confidential/competitive” business
information, defendant will designate these documents as
“attorney’s eyes only” and the parties will proceed with
the process outlined in the protective order.

As a general

matter, the Court contemplates that this category of
1

The Court leaves it to counsel to discuss and determine
whether defendants should provide a separate privilege log
for documents withheld or redacted on the grounds of
attorney-client privilege and work product protection, or
whether it would be more efficient to designate privileged
redactions in the same format as the non-privileged
redactions.
2

documents will be produced as “attorney’s eyes only” unless
defendant can make a showing of good cause why redaction of
the information is warranted.
This is not a recommended ruling.

This is a discovery

ruling and order which is reviewable pursuant to the
"clearly erroneous" statutory standard of review.

28

U.S.C. ' 636 (b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 6(e) and
72(a); and Rule 2 of the Local Rules for United States
Magistrate Judges.

As such, it is an order of the Court

unless reversed or modified by the district judge upon
motion timely made.
SO ORDERED at Bridgeport this 20th day of February
2014.

____/s/___________________
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3