Evanston Insurance Company v. Murphy

Opinion

WO

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

Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

Tracey Portee Murphy, et al.,

Defendants. Before the Court is Defendant/Counterclaimants’ Authority for Submission of Responsive Documents to Plaintiff/Counterdefendant’s Subpoena Served on Tolhurst International, LLC. (Doc. 76.) Defendants’ filing is essentially a motion to reconsider the Court’s prior order (the “Order”) finding that work-product privilege does not absolutely apply to the documents requested by Plaintiff in their subpoena duces tecum. (Doc. 74.) The Court’s previous Order directed Defendants to “state with specificity which items should be redacted and on what authority” for any documents provided to the Court for an in camera review. (Doc. 74 at 6.) Instead, Defendants’ submission here seems to argue that the Court reconsider, in its entirety, its previous Order. In doing so, they repeat arguments of blanket privilege that were already rejected. Defendants also say that “[i]n the alternative, the Court should permit substantial reductions (sic) of the substance of the documents to protect work product.” (Doc. 76 at 6.) But Defendants do not identify what particular redactions should be made, or on what authority. “A brief must make all 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 survey or excavate the record here to find meaning or direction in Defendants’ filing. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ request for in camera review and an order on redactions is summarily DENIED. (Doc. 76.) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall immediately produce the documents requested in Plaintiff's subpoena duces tecum. (See Doc. 69.) Dated this 10th day of August, 2020. WMichadl T. dibunde Michael T. Liburdi United States District Judge

_2-