ALC Power Road LLC v. Nationwide General Insurance Company

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 ALC Power Road LLC, No. CV-23-02591-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Nationwide General Insurance Company, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 On October 25, 2024, the court resolved five discovery disputes. (Doc. 50.) One 16 involved plaintiff ALC Power Road LLC’s request for production of unredacted “claim 17 notes” for what the parties call the second claim. (Doc. 50 at 2.) Defendant Nationwide 18 General Insurance Company had produced a privilege log and the court concluded ALC 19 had “not established any basis to require Nationwide produce the documents on that 20 privilege log.” (Doc. 50 at 2.) On November 8, 2024, ALC filed a fourteen-page motion 21 for reconsideration arguing Nationwide had waived the attorney-client privilege such that 22 it should be required to produce the unredacted “claim notes.” If production was not 23 ordered, ALC requested the court conduct an in camera review of the notes or at least 24 require Nationwide “amend its privilege log” to provide more information. (Doc. 52 at 14.) 25 Nationwide’s response argues the motion is procedurally improper and substantively 26 baseless. Nationwide is correct. 27 A motion for reconsideration should not ask the court “to rethink what the court had 28 already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc., 713 F. Supp. 3d 568, 576 (D. Ariz. 2024) (quotation marks and citation omitted). || In addition, it is inappropriate to file a motion for reconsideration to avoid limitations on 3|| how discovery disputes must be presented. And it is particularly inappropriate to file a motion for reconsideration regarding a discovery dispute the parties have not yet discussed. 5 || ALC’s motion violates all three of these basic precepts. 6 Despite providing extensive briefing far beyond the court’s page limits for discovery 7\| matters, ALC has not established Nationwide impliedly waived the attorney client 8 || privilege. Any disputes regarding the specificity of the privilege log are not yet ripe. If the 9|| parties cannot reach agreement regarding the privilege log, they must meet and confer before filing a joint statement that complies with the court’s orders. (See Doc. 50 at 6.) The 11 || court will resolve properly-presented discovery disputes, but it will not consider the same 12 || dispute multiple times or wade into discovery disagreements the parties have not even 13 || attempted to resolve on their own. 14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 52) is DENIED. 16 Dated this 20th day of November, 2024. 17 18 WV, hy op a | G. / 19 ahh AE Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-