Stanan, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company
- Lorna Schofield
- 1:24-cv-03975
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Stanan, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, Judge Schofield ordered a sample review of disputed privilege claims but did not finally decide whether the documents must be produced.
Stanan, Inc.; Mt. Hawley Insurance Company; Renaissance Re Syndicate 1458 Lloyds and Underwriters at Lloyds London; and the third parties Hotel Development and Management Group, LLC and Baldwin Group Southwest Inc., whose subpoenaed records were at issue.
What happened
In Stanan, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, the defendants challenged Stanan’s claims of privilege over emails collected from two third parties: Hotel Development and Management Group, LLC, Stanan’s property manager, and Baldwin Group Southwest Inc., Stanan’s insurance broker. The defendants asked the court to reject the privilege claims and order production.
The court explained that New York law governs the attorney-client privilege issues because the insurance policy requires New York law and the case was filed in this court under the policy’s venue provision. The dispute concerned 156 withheld emails in HDG’s possession, 71 in Baldwin’s possession, and specified remaining items in Baldwin’s privilege log.
Judge Lorna G. Schofield directed the defendants to submit 10 representative documents for private court review and directed Stanan to respond by explaining the basis for each privilege claim and identifying which documents it continued to withhold. The opinion does not show a final ruling on whether the documents are privileged or must be produced.
The detailed version
- Stanan, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company · No. 1:24-cv-03975
- Lorna Schofield
- Dec. 11, 2024
Background
The defendants filed a letter motion concerning privilege objections to third-party subpoenas served on Hotel Development and Management Group, LLC (HDG), identified as Stanan’s third-party property manager, and Baldwin Group Southwest Inc. (Baldwin or BKS), identified as Stanan’s insurance broker. The defendants objected to Stanan’s assertions of privilege over emails in those third parties’ possession and asked the court to overrule the assertions and order production.
The letter states that HDG’s privilege log listed 156 withheld emails and Baldwin’s privilege log listed 71. All items on the HDG log remained disputed. For the Baldwin log, the remaining disputed items were numbers 5, 7, 15, 18, 19, 22 through 36, 41, 44, and 49 through 71. The opinion states that the disputed communications had been sent or received by non-client third parties.
Applicable Law
The court stated that state law governs privilege issues when state law supplies the rule of decision. It further stated that, because this is a diversity case in which New York law governs the claims, New York law determines the attorney-client privilege issues. The policy’s Legal Action Conditions Endorsement requires the action to be brought in New York and provides that matters arising under the policy are determined under New York law, notwithstanding New York’s conflicts-of-law rules.
Court’s Action
The court directed the defendants to file a letter requesting private court review of 10 representative documents for which Stanan asserted privilege. The court also directed Stanan to respond by explaining, without disclosing allegedly privileged information, the basis for the privilege claim for each document, or explaining why the privilege assertion should be upheld. Stanan was directed to email the court copies of the response and the 10 documents it continued to claim were privileged.
The text provided does not contain a final ruling overruling the privilege assertions, ordering production of all disputed documents, or determining that any particular document is privileged. Judge Lorna G. Schofield’s action was an interim discovery directive requiring representative-document review and a response.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.