Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company

Filing 91

RULING Following Fifth In Camera Review (see attached). Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 05/06/15.(Malone, A.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
-------------------------------------------------------X
:
HARTFORD ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESAN :
CORP.
:
:
V.
:
:
INTERSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY CO.
:
:
-------------------------------------------------------X

3:12 CV 1641 (JBA)

DATE: MAY 6, 2015

RULING FOLLOWING FIFTH IN CAMERA REVIEW
The factual and procedural history behind this litigation is set forth in this Magistrate
Judge's Ruling on Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production, filed January 28, 2014 (Dkt. #39),
297 F.R.D. 22 ["January 2014 Ruling"], and in U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton's
Ruling on Defendant's and Plaintiff's Partial Objections to Magistrate Judge's Rulings, filed
January 13, 2015 (Dkt. #64)["January 2015 Ruling"], 2015 WL 164069. Familiarity is also
presumed with this Magistrate Judge's Ruling on Defendant's Motion to Compel Production,
filed February 19, 2014 (Dkt. #43), 2014 WL 652308, Ruling Following First In Camera
Review, filed February 26, 2014 (Dkt. #49)["February 2014 In Camera Review Ruling"],
Ruling Following Second In Camera Review, filed June 12, 2014 (Dkt. #63), 2014 WL
2615367, Ruling Following Third In Camera Review, filed March 25, 2015 (Dkt. #85), and
Ruling Following Fourth In Camera Review, filed March 31, 2015 (Dkt. #86)[March 31, 2015
In Camera Review Ruling], 2015 WL 1471920.
This file has been referred to this Magistrate Judge for all discovery. (Dkt. #29).
Under the latest scheduling order, filed by Judge Arterton on April 8, 2015, all discovery is
to be completed by June 30, 2015, and, after a pre-filing conference, all dispositive motions
are to be filed by August 31, 2015. (Dkt. #88).

As set forth in the January 2014 Ruling, in May 2013, plaintiff served twenty Requests
for Production on defendant, as to which defendant responded, with multiple objections, in
August 2013; after several conferences, counsel were able to resolve their disputes with
respect to nine requests, leaving the Court to resolve the remaining eleven requests in the
January 2014 Ruling. 297 F.R.D. at 24 (internal citations omitted). Prior to the Court's
ruling, according to plaintiff, defendant had produced only 568 documents, of which one
hundred and twenty-five were completely redacted and ninety-seven were partially redacted;
however, according to defendant, despite its objections, defendant produced 5,358 pages
of responsive documents, with a fifty-two page privilege log. Id. (internal citations omitted).
The January 2014 Ruling ordered defendant: (1) to produce for in camera review
documents concerning several claims asserted against plaintiff by seven claimants other than
the four Underlying Claimants here (Requests Nos. 5 & 15) and to respond to some of
plaintiff's other requests for documents (Requests Nos. 18, 19 & 20), id. at 24-26; (2) to
produce for in camera review documents relating to the underlying claims (Requests Nos.
12 & 13), id. at 26-29; (3) to respond to certain documents regarding policy interpretation
and application (Requests Nos. 10 & 14), id. at 29-30; and (4) to produce for in camera
review documents regarding reserves (Request No. 17), id. at 30-31.1
On February 11, 2014, defendant filed its Partial Objection with respect to Requests
Nos. 5, 12, 13, 15, 18 and 19. (Dkt. #41; see also Dkt. #48). Ten days later, defendant
filed a Motion for Partial Stay (Dkt. #44), requesting that it need not produce those
documents which are the subject of its pending objection, but instead respond only with
respect to those requests as to which it had not objected; that motion was granted the same

1

Plaintiff's motion became moot with respect to Request No. 6. Id. at 26.

2

day. (Dkt. #46). In accordance with the January 2014 Ruling, on February 24, 2014,
defendant submitted a small number of documents responsive to Request No. 17, redacting
out discussions that defendant contended were protected by the attorney-client privilege and
the work-product doctrine; the February 2014 In Camera Review Ruling found that these
documents were privileged and need not be disclosed to plaintiff. (Dkt. #49, at 2).
On January 13, 2015, Judge Arterton overruled defendant's objections with respect
to the January 2014 Ruling, agreeing that an in camera review was appropriate for Requests
Nos. 5, 12, 13 and 15, and ordering production with respect to Nos. 15, 18 and 19. 2015
WL 164069, at *1-7. On February 20, 2015, defendant submitted to the Magistrate Judge's
Chambers a large box of documents responsive to Requests Nos. 5, 12 and 13; the March
31, 2015 In Camera Review Ruling held that only a limited number of documents responsive
to Request No. 5 needed to be produced. 2015 WL 1471920, at *3.
As previously stated, in Request No. 15, plaintiff seeks all documents since 1978
concerning claims for coverage based on allegations of childhood sexual abuse against
religious entities, made under insurance policies sold by defendant. 297 F.R.D. at 25. The
January 2014 Discovery Ruling found that such documents were discoverable, but limited the
production to documents beginning with the year 2000 (not 1978), unless counsel agreed
otherwise, and ordered such documents to be produced to the Magistrate Judge's Chambers
for an in camera review, on the issue of attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine,
and/or any other privilege, with the claimants to be identified only by their initials. Id. at 26.
In the January 2015 Ruling, Judge Arterton overruled defendant's objection with respect to
the in camera review, 2015 WL 164069, at *2-3, and further overruled defendant's specific

3

objection to 2000 as the starting point, id. at *6-7.2
During telephonic discovery conferences, counsel and this Magistrate Judge agreed
that defendant would submit a representative sample of fifty claim files since 2000 for in
camera review, twenty-five in which defendant has paid the claim and twenty-five in which
defendant has not paid the claim. (Dkt. #87, at 2, 63; see also Dkts. ##74, 81). On May
1, 2015, defendant forwarded to this Magistrate Judge's Chambers the twenty-five unpaid
"other insured" claim files, with both the unredacted and the redacted versions (Interstate
Bates Nos. 12926-13729), and a privilege log.
After a careful in camera review, the Magistrate Judge agrees with defendant that the
portions that have been redacted are protected by the attorney-client privilege and hence
need not be produced.
Because this ruling is subject to review, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(written objections
to ruling must be filed within fourteen calendar days after service of same); FED.
R. CIV. P. 6(a), 6(e) & 72; Rule 72.2 of the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges,
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut; Small v. Secretary, H&HS, 892
F.2d. 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989)(failure to file timely objection to Magistrate Judge’s
recommended ruling may preclude further appeal to Second Circuit), the box of
documents will remain in this Magistrate Judge's Chambers. If either party files an objection
to this ruling, then the documents will be filed under seal and forwarded to Judge Arterton's
Chambers for her in camera review. If no objection is filed, then the documents will be

2

Judge Arterton noted, however, that plaintiff offered to narrow this request to include only
those claims since 2000 in which settlements or verdicts "reached [defendant's] layer" of excess
coverage. Id. at 6, n.6 (internal citations omitted).
3

Plaintiff has reserved its right to seek additional files after receiving the fifty sample files.
(Id. at 6, n.1).

4

returned to defense counsel.
This is not a Recommended Ruling, but a ruling on a non-dispositive motion, the
standard of review of which is specified in 28 U.S.C. § 636; FED. R. CIV. P. 6(a), 6(e) & 72;
and Rule 72.2 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 timely made objection.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut, this 6th day of May, 2015.

/s/ Joan G. Margolis, USMJ
Joan Glazer Margolis
United States Magistrate Judge

5