Kumar v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

N.D. California

Kumar v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company

DecidedMarch 28, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-03852

StatusUnknown

This text of Kumar v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (Kumar v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kumar v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NALINI KUMAR, et al., Case No. 22-cv-03852-TLT (LJC)

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY 9 v. DISPUTE

10 NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE Re: Dkt. No. 28 COMPANY, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Discovery Letter. Dkt. 28. The parties 14 dispute the sufficiency of Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company’s (Nationwide) 15 privilege log, as well as the bases on which Nationwide is withholding certain documents and 16 communications relevant to the underlying action. Plaintiffs contend that Nationwide improperly 17 asserts the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine for communications with Julian 18 Pardini, counsel retained by Nationwide in the course of processing Plaintiffs’ insurance claim. 19 According to Plaintiffs, “[t]he law is clear that an insurer cannot shield its claims process simply 20 by assigning an attorney to do the work of a claims adjuster.” Id. (quoting Renovate America, Inc. 21 v. Lloyd's Syndicate 1458, 2020 WL 5106657, at *4 (S.D.Cal. 2020)). 22 Nationwide is ordered to file a letter brief of no more than three pages establishing a prima 23 facie showing of the applicability of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine to the 24 documents it is withholding. In particular, Nationwide shall file any declaration(s) and/or 25 documentation setting forth the facts of the nature of its relationship with Mr. Pardini and Mr. 26 Pardini’s role in processing and handling Plaintiffs’ insurance claim. Nationwide shall file its 27 letter brief no later than Saturday, April 1, 2023, at 12:00 P.M. In addition, Nationwide shall 1 Plaintiffs shall file their own letter brief in response of no more than three pages by 2 Wednesday, April 5, 2023, at 12:00 P.M. Plaintiffs may likewise file any declaration(s) and/or 3 || documentation in opposition to Nationwide’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege and work 4 product doctrine, if they so choose. 5 A hearing on this matter will be held on Thursday, April 6, 2023, at 1:30 P.M. via Zoom 6 || videoconferencing. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: March 28, 2023 9 10 J. CISNEROS 11 ited States Magistrate Judge a 12

13 14

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NALINI KUMAR, et al., Case No. 22-cv-03852-TLT (LJC)

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY 9 v. DISPUTE

10 NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE Re: Dkt. No. 28 COMPANY, 11 Defendant.

12 13 Pending before the Court is the parties’ Joint Discovery Letter. Dkt. 28. The parties 14 dispute the sufficiency of Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company’s (Nationwide) 15 privilege log, as well as the bases on which Nationwide is withholding certain documents and 16 communications relevant to the underlying action. Plaintiffs contend that Nationwide improperly 17 asserts the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine for communications with Julian 18 Pardini, counsel retained by Nationwide in the course of processing Plaintiffs’ insurance claim. 19 According to Plaintiffs, “[t]he law is clear that an insurer cannot shield its claims process simply 20 by assigning an attorney to do the work of a claims adjuster.” Id. (quoting Renovate America, Inc. 21 v. Lloyd's Syndicate 1458, 2020 WL 5106657, at *4 (S.D.Cal. 2020)). 22 Nationwide is ordered to file a letter brief of no more than three pages establishing a prima 23 facie showing of the applicability of the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine to the 24 documents it is withholding. In particular, Nationwide shall file any declaration(s) and/or 25 documentation setting forth the facts of the nature of its relationship with Mr. Pardini and Mr. 26 Pardini’s role in processing and handling Plaintiffs’ insurance claim. Nationwide shall file its 27 letter brief no later than Saturday, April 1, 2023, at 12:00 P.M. In addition, Nationwide shall 1 Plaintiffs shall file their own letter brief in response of no more than three pages by 2 Wednesday, April 5, 2023, at 12:00 P.M. Plaintiffs may likewise file any declaration(s) and/or 3 || documentation in opposition to Nationwide’s assertion of the attorney-client privilege and work 4 product doctrine, if they so choose. 5 A hearing on this matter will be held on Thursday, April 6, 2023, at 1:30 P.M. via Zoom 6 || videoconferencing. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: March 28, 2023 9 10 J. CISNEROS 11 ited States Magistrate Judge a 12

13 14

15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Kumar v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kumar-v-nationwide-mutual-insurance-company-cand-2023.