King County v Travelers Indemnity Company et al

Filing 652

ORDER granting City of Seattle's 635 motion to intervene signed by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein.(RM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
KING COUNTY,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
PROVIDENCE WASHINGTON
)
INSURANCE CO., et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-01957-BJR
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
INTERVENE

17
18

Before the Court is the City of Seattle’s motion to intervene for the limited purpose of

19

responding to a discovery motion that the City anticipates will be filed by Defendant Employers

20

Insurance of Wausau (“Wausau”). Doc. 635. Specifically, the City requests that it be heard

21

regarding the potential production of documents assembled and/or created during a multi-year

22
23

alternative dispute resolution process known as the Duwamish Allocation. Id. The City is one of
44 parties participating in the Allocation. Id. at 1. According to the City, “nearly all the other

24
25

parties” share the City’s concern that the documents that will be sought are subject to the strict
confidentiality requirements of the agreement that governs the Allocation. Id. at 2. Defendant
1

1
2

Wausau does not oppose the City’s motion, but filed a “clarification.” Doc. 644. According to
Wausau’s clarification, its anticipated motion involves whether any privilege afforded by the

3

Allocation’s agreement has been waived. Id.

4

Company (“Providence”) opposes the City’s motion, arguing that the City does not have the

5

requisite significant protectable interest relating to the insurance policies at issue in this case. Doc.

6

Defendant Providence Washington Insurance

645. Additionally, or alternatively, Providence argues that any hypothetical interest of the City is

7
adequately protected by Plaintiff King County. Id. The City, in response, asserts that it has a
8
9

protectable interest in maintaining the confidentiality of the Allocation documents. Doc. 646.

10

Further, the City maintains, its interest is not protected by Plaintiff because if the Allocation fails,

11

Plaintiff’s insurers would have to “pay the costs for cost-contribution litigation,” while the City

12

has no such insurance, and therefore, will have to litigate at its own expense. Id. The Court agrees.

13

See Wilderness Soc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 630 F.3d 1173, 1179 (9th Cir. 2011) (“In evaluating

14

whether Rule 24(a)(2)’s requirements are met,” courts should “construe the Rule broadly in favor

15
of proposed intervenors…because a liberal policy in favor of intervention serves both efficient
16
17

resolution of issues and broadened access to the courts”) (internal quotations omitted). Thus, the

18

Court GRANTS the City’s motion [635]. The City shall be permitted to file a brief in opposition

19

to Defendant Wausau’s anticipated motion, as well as any motion subsequently brought by any

20

another Defendant concerning the confidentiality of the documents assembled during the

21
22

Allocation. SO ORDERED.
Dated this 14th day of February, 2018.

23
24
25
BARBARA J. ROTHSTEIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2