Canyon Estates Condominium Association v. Atain Specialty Insurance Company

W.D. Washington

Canyon Estates Condominium Association v. Atain Specialty Insurance Company

DecidedJanuary 10, 2020

Docket2:18-cv-01761

StatusUnknown

This text of Canyon Estates Condominium Association v. Atain Specialty Insurance Company (Canyon Estates Condominium Association v. Atain Specialty Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Canyon Estates Condominium Association v. Atain Specialty Insurance Company, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 CANYON ESTATES CONDOMINIUM 9 ASSOCIATION, a Washington non-profit 10 corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-01761-RAJ

11 Plaintiff, ORDER

12 v. 13 ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; INDIAN HARBOR 14 INSURANCE COMPANY; 15 WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY; AND GREAT 16 LAKES INSURANCE, SE, 17 Defendant. 18 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Great Lakes’ objections to the order 19 granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Dkt. # 90. 20 Great Lakes makes three objections to Magistrate Judge Theiler’s order. First, Great 21 Lakes objects to the magistrate’s determination that attorney-client privilege does not apply 22 to the to the documents listed in Great Lakes’ privilege log entries 5, 6-9, 10-16, 18-22, 23 and 24-69. Second, Great Lakes objects to the magistrate’s determination that the work 24 product protections of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 do not apply to the to the documents listed in 25 Great Lakes’ privilege log entries 5-16, 18-24, 32-34, 36, 38, 42, 46, 47-48, 59-61, 65-67, 26 69-70, 72. And third, Great Lakes objects to the magistrate’s order compelling the 27 1 deposition of Great Lakes’ outside counsel, Michael Hooks. 2 Although the Court finds no error in the magistrate’s analysis, the Court will order 3 an in camera review of the documents at issue above. If the assertions of privileges prove 4 to be baseless after review, the Court may exercise its discretion to issue sanctions. Rachel 5 v. Banana Republic, Inc., 831 F.2d 1503, 1508 (9th Cir. 1987). 6 Great Lakes is ORDERED to submit the documents listed above for in camera 7 review no later than 4:00pm on Monday, January 13, 2020. In an abundance of caution, 8 the Court will issue a temporary stay of the magistrate’s order pending review. 9 DATED this 10th day of January 2020.

10 A 11

12 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HONORABLE RICHARD A. JONES 1

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 CANYON ESTATES CONDOMINIUM 9 ASSOCIATION, a Washington non-profit 10 corporation, Case No. 2:18-cv-01761-RAJ

11 Plaintiff, ORDER

12 v. 13 ATAIN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; INDIAN HARBOR 14 INSURANCE COMPANY; 15 WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY; AND GREAT 16 LAKES INSURANCE, SE, 17 Defendant. 18 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Great Lakes’ objections to the order 19 granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff’s motion to compel. Dkt. # 90. 20 Great Lakes makes three objections to Magistrate Judge Theiler’s order. First, Great 21 Lakes objects to the magistrate’s determination that attorney-client privilege does not apply 22 to the to the documents listed in Great Lakes’ privilege log entries 5, 6-9, 10-16, 18-22, 23 and 24-69. Second, Great Lakes objects to the magistrate’s determination that the work 24 product protections of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 do not apply to the to the documents listed in 25 Great Lakes’ privilege log entries 5-16, 18-24, 32-34, 36, 38, 42, 46, 47-48, 59-61, 65-67, 26 69-70, 72. And third, Great Lakes objects to the magistrate’s order compelling the 27 1 deposition of Great Lakes’ outside counsel, Michael Hooks. 2 Although the Court finds no error in the magistrate’s analysis, the Court will order 3 an in camera review of the documents at issue above. If the assertions of privileges prove 4 to be baseless after review, the Court may exercise its discretion to issue sanctions. Rachel 5 v. Banana Republic, Inc., 831 F.2d 1503, 1508 (9th Cir. 1987). 6 Great Lakes is ORDERED to submit the documents listed above for in camera 7 review no later than 4:00pm on Monday, January 13, 2020. In an abundance of caution, 8 the Court will issue a temporary stay of the magistrate’s order pending review. 9 DATED this 10th day of January 2020.

10 A 11

12 The Honorable Richard A. Jones 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Canyon Estates Condominium Association v. Atain Specialty Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canyon-estates-condominium-association-v-atain-specialty-insurance-company-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack