Premier Harvest, LLC v. AXIS Surplus Insurance Company, C17-0784-JCC. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20180412e44
Visitors: 24
Filed: Apr. 11, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 11, 2018
Summary: ORDER JOHN C. COUGHENOUR , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion to compel production by Defendant Axis Surplus Insurance Company (Dkt. No. 74). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, and having conducted in camera review of the documents at issue, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs' motion. The following six documents from Defendant's privilege log are subject to the attorney-client privilege and
Summary: ORDER JOHN C. COUGHENOUR , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion to compel production by Defendant Axis Surplus Insurance Company (Dkt. No. 74). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, and having conducted in camera review of the documents at issue, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs' motion. The following six documents from Defendant's privilege log are subject to the attorney-client privilege and/..
More
ORDER
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion to compel production by Defendant Axis Surplus Insurance Company (Dkt. No. 74). Having thoroughly considered the parties' briefing and the relevant record, and having conducted in camera review of the documents at issue, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiffs' motion. The following six documents from Defendant's privilege log are subject to the attorney-client privilege and/or represent protected work-product and need not be produced: ASIC_CLM000143 — 000180, ASIC_CLM000713 — 000731, ASIC_CLM000809 — 000827, ASIC_CLM0001104 — 0001115, ASIC_CLM0001667 — 0001669, and ASIC_CLM0003135 — 0003136. (Dkt. No. 75-1.) The remaining documents at issue are communications associated with an insurance claim investigation and, as such, are not shielded by the attorney-client privilege or the work-product rule. (See Dkt. No. 58 at 3) (Court's prior order indicating that "investigation of the justness of a claim . . . is part of Defendant's business, even if fraud is suspected.") Therefore, Defendant must produce these documents in unredacted form. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' motion to compel (Dkt. No. 74) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
Source: Leagle
