Schmidt v. Allstate Insurance Company

W.D. Washington

Schmidt v. Allstate Insurance Company

DecidedApril 8, 2020

Docket3:19-cv-05589

StatusUnknown

This text of Schmidt v. Allstate Insurance Company (Schmidt v. Allstate 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

Schmidt v. Allstate Insurance Company, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4

5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT TACOMA 8 BRIONNA SCHMIDT, CASE NO. C19-5589RBL 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 12 Defendant. 13

14 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Schmidt’s Motion to Compel. [Dkt. #19]. 15 The Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 16 1. If and to the extent it has not done so, Allstate shall immediately produce all claims 17 manuals and other non-privileged documents responsive to Schmidt’s Requests for Production Nos. 18 4, 5, and 7, subject to the proviso that they shall be used only in connection with this litigation. 19 2. The parties will meet and confer (without a court reporter) and agree on a mutually 20 acceptable date for the 30(b)(6) deposition, and, if necessary, for Schmidt’s deposition. 21 3. The Court will not award fees or sanctions. 22 4. The Court overrules Allstate’s attorney-client privilege and work-product objections 23 to producing documents regarding Allstate’s bases for calculating Schmidt’s insurance policy limits 24 and Allstate’s basis for tendering the balance of Schmidt’s policy limits as a post-litigation 1 undisputed loss payment. The foregoing documents reflect claims-handling activities that are 2 separate from the strategic litigation defenses that are privileged in a UIM case. Richardson v. Gov’t 3 Employees Ins. Co., 200 Wn. App. 705, 714–15, 403 P.3d 115, 122 (2017) (citation omitted). 4 Attorneys’ involvement in these claims-handling activities does not render them subject to the

5 attorney-client privilege or the attorney-work product doctrine. Ten Talents Inv. 1, LLC v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., C12-5849RBL, 2013 WL 1618780, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 15, 2013) (citation omitted); 6 Carnahan v. Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity, Inc., 2:17-CV-00086-RSL, 2018 WL 5825310, at *2 7 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2018) (citations omitted). 8 5. The parties will remember the lesson of proportionality. Be reasonable, be cordial, be 9 professional. Sign the model protective order and mediate this dispute at the earliest time and in the 10 cheapest manner. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated this 8th day of April, 2020. 13 A 14 15 Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

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

1 HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON 2 3 4

5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 7 AT TACOMA 8 BRIONNA SCHMIDT, CASE NO. C19-5589RBL 9 Plaintiff, ORDER 10 v. 11 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 12 Defendant. 13

14 THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff Schmidt’s Motion to Compel. [Dkt. #19]. 15 The Motion to Compel is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. 16 1. If and to the extent it has not done so, Allstate shall immediately produce all claims 17 manuals and other non-privileged documents responsive to Schmidt’s Requests for Production Nos. 18 4, 5, and 7, subject to the proviso that they shall be used only in connection with this litigation. 19 2. The parties will meet and confer (without a court reporter) and agree on a mutually 20 acceptable date for the 30(b)(6) deposition, and, if necessary, for Schmidt’s deposition. 21 3. The Court will not award fees or sanctions. 22 4. The Court overrules Allstate’s attorney-client privilege and work-product objections 23 to producing documents regarding Allstate’s bases for calculating Schmidt’s insurance policy limits 24 and Allstate’s basis for tendering the balance of Schmidt’s policy limits as a post-litigation 1 undisputed loss payment. The foregoing documents reflect claims-handling activities that are 2 separate from the strategic litigation defenses that are privileged in a UIM case. Richardson v. Gov’t 3 Employees Ins. Co., 200 Wn. App. 705, 714–15, 403 P.3d 115, 122 (2017) (citation omitted). 4 Attorneys’ involvement in these claims-handling activities does not render them subject to the

5 attorney-client privilege or the attorney-work product doctrine. Ten Talents Inv. 1, LLC v. Ohio Sec. Ins. Co., C12-5849RBL, 2013 WL 1618780, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 15, 2013) (citation omitted); 6 Carnahan v. Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity, Inc., 2:17-CV-00086-RSL, 2018 WL 5825310, at *2 7 (W.D. Wash. Nov. 7, 2018) (citations omitted). 8 5. The parties will remember the lesson of proportionality. Be reasonable, be cordial, be 9 professional. Sign the model protective order and mediate this dispute at the earliest time and in the 10 cheapest manner. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated this 8th day of April, 2020. 13 A 14 15 Ronald B. Leighton United States District Judge 16 17

18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Schmidt v. Allstate Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schmidt-v-allstate-insurance-company-wawd-2020.