Lima LS plc v. PHL Variable Insurance Company et al
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)
PHL VARIABLE INSURANCE COMPANY,
PHOENIX LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, THE
PHOENIX COMPANIES, INC.,
JAMES D. WEHR,
PHILIP K. POLKINGHORN, and
DONA D. YOUNG
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
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
HOLLY B. FITZSIMMONS
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?