Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-088 - Decker et al v. Chubb National Insurance Company et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-088 - Decker et al v. Chubb National Insurance Company et al
October 14, 2015
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that 1.) the Boone exception to the attorney-client privilege applies to the claims file in this case; 2.) The opinion letter and time line documents contained in File 8 (see note 6, supra) be protected as work product and withheld from plaintiffs; 3.) All other claims file documents be produced to plaintiffs unless, within (20) days of any order adopting the above two recommendations: a. Defendants identify by Bates number the documents they assert are "clearly not relevant" to the claims in this case, the basis for their conclusion that such documents are not relevant, and the evidenct in support of their continued redaction or witholding from plaintiffs. b. Defendants identify by Bates number any documents contained in File 7 they assert are protected as work product, the basis for the work product protection, and the evidence in support of their continued witholding from plaintiffs. Objections to R&R due by 11/2/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 10/14/2015. (art)
November 9, 2015
PDF | More
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 23 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, the Court finds the Boone exception to the attorney-client privilege applies to the claims file in this case.The opinion letter and time line documents contained in File 8 are protected as work product and withheld from plaintiffs.All other claims file documents are to be produced to plaintiffs unless, within 20 days of any Order adopting the report and recommendation: Defendants identify by Bates number the documents they assert are clearly not relevant to the claims in this case, the basis for their conclusion that such documents are not relevant, and the evidence in support of their continued redaction or withholding from plaintiffs. Defendants identify by Bates number any documents contained in File 7 they assert are protected as work product, the basis for the work product protection, and the evidence in support of their continued withholding from plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 11/9/15. (wam)
October 3, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER following 44 Informal Discovery Conference regarding depositions/sworn statements taken by defense counsel; request for review of the claims file generated by coverage counsel including coverage counsel's Opinion and Recommendation to pay of deny the claim authored prior to denial of Plaintiff's claims; request for written representation from defense counsel that there are no other files containing documents or other claims related information which were generated during the investigation of the claim and kept outside the "official claims file"; and request that the Court permit an agreement between counsel to extend expert disclosures for (15) days in order to complete rescheduled depositions. Defendants shall submit documents to the Court for an in camera review by 10/6/2016. The Court grants the parties' respective requests for extensions of time as set forth in their joint discovery dispute agenda. Documents for in camera review by the Court due by 10/6/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 10/3/2016. (art)