Allied World Assurance Company (US) Inc v. Ahepa National Housing Corporation et al

Filing 133

ORDER re 100 Defendant's Motion to Compel production of certain documents inpossession of Plaintiff and a third party. Signed by Honorable Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. on 06/25/2014. (bshr, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION Allied World Assurance Company (U.S.), Inc., C/A No. 3:13-cv-00354-JFA Plaintiff, vs. AHEPA National Housing Corporation; AHEPA Affordable Housing Management Company, Inc., d/b/a AHEPA Management Company, Inc.; AHEPA 242, Inc.; AHEPA 284 III, Inc.; and AHEPA 284, IV, Inc., ORDER Defendants. Before the court is Defendant’s Motion to Compel production of certain documents in possession of Plaintiff and a third party, Crawford and Company. Crawford and Company acted as the adjuster in this insurance dispute. The court made several rulings orally at a hearing on April 29, 2014, and requested that the remaining disputed documents and redactions be submitted for in camera review. Those documents and redactions were submitted to the court in a color-coded fashion—that is, different colors related to different claims of privilege. The court rules as follows: 1. The court orders Plaintiff and Crawford and Company to produce all documents, without redactions, related to reserves—that is those documents and redactions that are green. 2. The court orders Plaintiff and Crawford and Company to produce all documents, without redactions, related to business proprietary and/or confidential non-relevant information—that is those documents and redactions that are blue. 3. The court orders Plaintiff and Crawford and Company to produce those documents, without redactions, related to the attorney-client privilege—that is those documents and redactions that are yellow—specifically listed below: Crawford and Company Privilege Log Bates Numbers: 1. Crawford 004435 2. Crawford 004484 3. Crawford 004485 4. Crawford 004486 5. Crawford 004503 6. Crawford 004524 7. Crawford 004599 8. Crawford 004603 9. Crawford 004610 10. Crawford 004660 11. Crawford 004468 12. Crawford 000526 13. Crawford 001082 Allied World Assurance Company Privilege Log Bates Numbers: 1. AWAC 000029 2. AWAC 001821 3. AWAC 001901 4. AWAC 002013 5. AWAC 003415 6. AWAC 003422 7. AWAC 003423 8. AWAC 003424 9. AWAC 003425 10. AWAC 003445 11. AWAC 003449 12. AWAC 003994 13. AWAC 004761 Certain pages contain valid assertions of privilege and invalid assertions of privilege; those pages will be returned to Plaintiff and Crawford and Company.1 Among those 1 The bates numbers of those pages are as follows: CRAWFORD 004470; CRAWFORD 004497; CRAWFORD 004507; CRAWFORD 004527; CRAWFORD 004558; CRAWFORD 004617; CRAWFORD 004637; CRAWFORD 004644; CRAWFORD 004664; CRAWFORD 004679; CRAWFORD 004682; AWAC 003428; pages, the court orders any claim of privilege circled in pink highlighter to be produced; those claims of privilege not circled are valid assertions of the privilege. As to documents CRAWFORD 004689-004720, the court finds that only the specific information describing the services provided is protected.2 The remainders of those documents are ordered to be produced. The court finds all other assertions of the attorney-client privilege—that is those documents and redactions not specifically addressed in this order—to be valid. IT IS SO ORDERED. June 25, 2014 Columbia, South Carolina Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. United States District Judge AWAC 003432. 2 This is the information beginning on the line immediately following the line containing the initials of the professional providing the service, and ending with the next line containing the initials of the professional providing the service. The information contained in the “Hrs/Rate” column and the “Amount” columns are to be produced. An example of the appropriate method of redaction has been attached to this order.

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?