Mandarin Oriental, Inc. v. HDI Global Insurance Company

Background

Mandarin Oriental, Inc. moved to compel its insurers, HDI Global Insurance Company and Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A., to produce documents withheld as privileged. In an earlier related proceeding, the court had granted that motion in part and denied it in part after reviewing certain documents privately. The insurers later disclosed that attachments had been omitted from the materials submitted for review and asked the court to clarify its ruling as to several exemplars. The court directed the insurers to submit the omitted attachments for another private review.

The court applied the same standards and conclusions used in the earlier related proceeding. The attorney-client privilege, referred to in the opinion as the ACP, protects confidential communications reflecting requests for or provision of legal advice. Work-product protection, referred to as WPP, generally protects materials prepared for litigation. The court concluded that New York law required the insurers to set reserves and that certain reserve-related communications, made more than a year before the action began, were not protected by WPP.

Rulings on the Exemplars

- Exemplar 1: The insurers could redact the portion summarizing HDI’s counsel’s legal advice. They had to produce the rest, including the email-chain discussions about negotiations and reserves. - Exemplar 1—Attachment 1: The insurers could withhold a September 3, 2021 letter from Zelle summarizing its coverage analysis because it contained legal analysis and advice. They had to produce the attached HDI policy, which was not privileged. - Exemplar 1—Attachment 2: The insurers could redact the portion summarizing HDI counsel’s advice. They had to produce the remaining email-chain material concerning negotiations and reserves. - Exemplar 2—Attachment 1: Because it was identical to Exemplar 1—Attachment 1, the court applied the same ruling: the Zelle coverage-analysis letter could be withheld, but the HDI policy had to be produced. - Exemplar 3: The insurers could redact a short summary of HDI counsel’s opinion about potential litigation and had to produce the rest. - Exemplar 4: The insurers could redact a short summary of Generali counsel’s legal advice and had to produce the rest. - Exemplar 5—Attachment 1: The insurers could redact an email seeking legal advice and the attached draft settlement agreement and release. They had to produce the remainder of the email chain. - Exemplar 5—Attachment 2: The insurers could redact the September 3 Zelle coverage-analysis letter and additional emails between Generali personnel and Zelle’s representative. They had to produce the remaining material.

Disposition

The order permitted specified redactions and required production of the specified nonprivileged portions. It did not issue a new ruling on the underlying insurance dispute. Judge Sarah L. Cave signed the opinion and order.