John Gurner, et al. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

D. Nevada

John Gurner, et al. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company

DecidedJanuary 6, 2026

Docket3:24-cv-00158

StatusUnknown

This text of John Gurner, et al. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company (John Gurner, et al. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

John Gurner, et al. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, (D. Nev. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 3:24-cv-00158-MMD-CSD JOHN GURNER, et al., 4 Order Plaintiffs 5 Re: ECF No. 96 v. 6 AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL 7 INSURANCE COMPANY,

8 Defendants

10 The court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ discovery motion (ECF Nos. 96, 96-1) and 11 Defendant’s response (ECF Nos. 99, 99-1) concerning Defendant’s assertion that documents 12 labeled AFICS Claim (363069) 000046-51, 000055-58, which have been produced to Plaintiff in 13 redacted form, are subject to work product protection, attorney-client privilege, and are not 14 relevant. 15 When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged or subject to protection 16 as trial-preparation material, the party must: 17 (i) expressly make the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the [information] not produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner 18 that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim. 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A). 20 The party withholding documents as privileged or protected has the burden of 21 establishing the privileged character of the information. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 22 1069, 1070 (9th Cir. 1992) (attorney-client privilege); Spargo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 23 2017 WL 2695292 (D. Nev. June 22, 2017) (citation omitted) (work product). This is typically 1 done through a privilege log. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d at 1071 (citation omitted). 2 “[A] proper assertion of privilege must be more specific than a generalized boilerplate 3 objection.” Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Mont., 408 4 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir. 2005).

5 The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between an attorney 6 and client (or their representatives) made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Nev. Rev. 7 Stat. 49.095. 8 The work product doctrine, codified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3), protects 9 from discovery “documents and tangible things prepared by a party of his representative in 10 anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative[.]” Production of 11 documents otherwise protected by the doctrine may only be ordered upon a showing of 12 “substantial need” and “undue hardship” in obtaining the “substantial equivalent of the materials 13 by other means.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). 14 Opinion work product—an attorney’s mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal

15 theories—is only discoverable when counsel’s mental impressions are at issue and there is a 16 compelling need for disclosure. Holmgren v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573, 17 577 (9th Cir. 1992). Holmgren confirmed that “[i]n a bad faith insurance claim settlement case, 18 the strategy, mental impressions, and opinion of [the insurer’s] agents concerning the handling of 19 the claim are directly at issue.” Holmgren, 976 F.2d at 577 (citation and quotation marks 20 omitted). The party seeking production must still demonstrate the need for this information is 21 compelling and not available elsewhere. See id. 22 The court finds that the information provided in Defendant’s privilege log is not 23 sufficient to allow the court to assess the claim of attorney-client privilege or work product 1}| protection. Preliminarily, the privilege log lists the date for each of these documents (as well as various others that are not the subject of this motion) as March 20, 2024; however, Plaintiff represents that the documents each have different dates. Moreover, the only description of the documents in the privilege log is as follows: “Claim Summary containing mental impressions, 5] conclusions, and legal theories of an adjuster[.]” (ECF No. 99-1 at 34.) The remainder of the so- called description is just a summary of the privileges being asserted in the next column. The 7\| brief, conclusory statement that each of the documents contain mental impressions, conclusions 8|| and legal theories of an adjuster does not allow the court to determine the applicability of the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. 10 As such, the court will require Defendant to produce the documents at issue for in camera review to determine applicability of the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. 12 CONCLUSION 13 On or before January 13, 2026, Defendant shall deliver to chambers, in compliance with 14] Local Rule IA 10-04, unredacted as well as the redacted copies of the documents identified AFICS Claim (363069) 000046-51, 000055-58 for in camera review. 16) IT IS SO ORDERED. 17|| Dated: January 6, 2026 CS oy Craig S. Denney 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23

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

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Case No.: 3:24-cv-00158-MMD-CSD JOHN GURNER, et al., 4 Order Plaintiffs 5 Re: ECF No. 96 v. 6 AMERICAN FAMILY MUTUAL 7 INSURANCE COMPANY,

8 Defendants

10 The court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ discovery motion (ECF Nos. 96, 96-1) and 11 Defendant’s response (ECF Nos. 99, 99-1) concerning Defendant’s assertion that documents 12 labeled AFICS Claim (363069) 000046-51, 000055-58, which have been produced to Plaintiff in 13 redacted form, are subject to work product protection, attorney-client privilege, and are not 14 relevant. 15 When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable by claiming that the information is privileged or subject to protection 16 as trial-preparation material, the party must: 17 (i) expressly make the claim; and (ii) describe the nature of the [information] not produced or disclosed—and do so in a manner 18 that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the claim. 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A). 20 The party withholding documents as privileged or protected has the burden of 21 establishing the privileged character of the information. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d 22 1069, 1070 (9th Cir. 1992) (attorney-client privilege); Spargo v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 23 2017 WL 2695292 (D. Nev. June 22, 2017) (citation omitted) (work product). This is typically 1 done through a privilege log. In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d at 1071 (citation omitted). 2 “[A] proper assertion of privilege must be more specific than a generalized boilerplate 3 objection.” Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Mont., 408 4 F.3d 1142, 1147 (9th Cir. 2005).

5 The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between an attorney 6 and client (or their representatives) made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Nev. Rev. 7 Stat. 49.095. 8 The work product doctrine, codified in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(3), protects 9 from discovery “documents and tangible things prepared by a party of his representative in 10 anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative[.]” Production of 11 documents otherwise protected by the doctrine may only be ordered upon a showing of 12 “substantial need” and “undue hardship” in obtaining the “substantial equivalent of the materials 13 by other means.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). 14 Opinion work product—an attorney’s mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal

15 theories—is only discoverable when counsel’s mental impressions are at issue and there is a 16 compelling need for disclosure. Holmgren v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 976 F.2d 573, 17 577 (9th Cir. 1992). Holmgren confirmed that “[i]n a bad faith insurance claim settlement case, 18 the strategy, mental impressions, and opinion of [the insurer’s] agents concerning the handling of 19 the claim are directly at issue.” Holmgren, 976 F.2d at 577 (citation and quotation marks 20 omitted). The party seeking production must still demonstrate the need for this information is 21 compelling and not available elsewhere. See id. 22 The court finds that the information provided in Defendant’s privilege log is not 23 sufficient to allow the court to assess the claim of attorney-client privilege or work product 1}| protection. Preliminarily, the privilege log lists the date for each of these documents (as well as various others that are not the subject of this motion) as March 20, 2024; however, Plaintiff represents that the documents each have different dates. Moreover, the only description of the documents in the privilege log is as follows: “Claim Summary containing mental impressions, 5] conclusions, and legal theories of an adjuster[.]” (ECF No. 99-1 at 34.) The remainder of the so- called description is just a summary of the privileges being asserted in the next column. The 7\| brief, conclusory statement that each of the documents contain mental impressions, conclusions 8|| and legal theories of an adjuster does not allow the court to determine the applicability of the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. 10 As such, the court will require Defendant to produce the documents at issue for in camera review to determine applicability of the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. 12 CONCLUSION 13 On or before January 13, 2026, Defendant shall deliver to chambers, in compliance with 14] Local Rule IA 10-04, unredacted as well as the redacted copies of the documents identified AFICS Claim (363069) 000046-51, 000055-58 for in camera review. 16) IT IS SO ORDERED. 17|| Dated: January 6, 2026 CS oy Craig S. Denney 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

John Gurner, et al. v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-gurner-et-al-v-american-family-mutual-insurance-company-nvd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack