Evanston Insurance Company v. Murphy

Opinion

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

9 Evanston Insurance Company, No. CV-19-04954-PHX-MTL

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Tracey Portee Murphy, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is Defendant/Counterclaimants’ Authority for Submission of 16 Responsive Documents to Plaintiff/Counterdefendant’s Subpoena Served on Tolhurst 17 International, LLC. (Doc. 76.) Defendants’ filing is essentially a motion to reconsider the 18 Court’s prior order (the “Order”) finding that work-product privilege does not absolutely 19 apply to the documents requested by Plaintiff in their subpoena duces tecum. (Doc. 74.) 20 The Court’s previous Order directed Defendants to “state with specificity which 21 items should be redacted and on what authority” for any documents provided to the Court 22 for an in camera review. (Doc. 74 at 6.) Instead, Defendants’ submission here seems to 23 argue that the Court reconsider, in its entirety, its previous Order. In doing so, they repeat 24 arguments of blanket privilege that were already rejected. Defendants also say that “[i]n 25 the alternative, the Court should permit substantial reductions (sic) of the substance of the 26 documents to protect work product.” (Doc. 76 at 6.) But Defendants do not identify what 27 particular redactions should be made, or on what authority. “A brief must make all 28 arguments accessible to the judg[e], rather than ask [him] to play archaeologist with the □□ record.” Riddell, Inc. v. Kranos Corp., 319 F. Supp. 3d 1071, 1095 n.18 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (quoting DeSilva V. DiLeonardi, 181 F.3d 865, 867 (7th Cir. 1999)). The Court will not 3 || survey or excavate the record here to find meaning or direction in Defendants’ filing. 4 Accordingly, 5 IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ request for in camera review and an order on 6 || redactions is summarily DENIED. (Doc. 76.) 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall immediately produce the 8 || documents requested in Plaintiff's subpoena duces tecum. (See Doc. 69.) 9 10 Dated this 10th day of August, 2020. 11 WMichadl T. dibunde Michael T. Liburdi 14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-