Albert D. Seeno Construction Company v. Aspen Insurance UK Limited

Background

The parties disputed whether the plaintiffs could depose Greg Schopf. Schopf is an attorney who sent several letters on Aspen’s behalf concerning two construction-defect claims tendered under the plaintiffs’ insurance policies.

The plaintiffs argued that Schopf acted as a claims examiner when he investigated coverage issues and stated Aspen’s position in letters sent to the plaintiffs’ insurance broker. The plaintiffs believed the positions in those letters were unreasonable and wanted to question Schopf about the basis for his statements.

Aspen characterized Schopf as its coverage counsel and asserted that his communications with Aspen were protected by the attorney-client privilege. Aspen did not argue that the facts contained in Schopf’s letters to the broker were confidential. Instead, Aspen argued that the deposition was unnecessary because the plaintiffs had already deposed Aspen’s corporate witness about Schopf’s role and the handling of the two claims. Aspen also argued that the plaintiffs could contend that the letters were unreasonable without deposing Schopf.

Court’s analysis

The court noted that depositions of attorneys are disfavored and should not be allowed when the information is available from less intrusive sources. The court nevertheless found that a limited deposition was appropriate. The plaintiffs asserted that Aspen’s corporate witness would not agree that Schopf had stated a position in either letter and testified that Aspen had not spoken with Schopf to prepare for the deposition. The court also noted that the parties had not provided excerpts from that deposition and that Aspen had not submitted a declaration from Schopf describing his work for Aspen.

Ruling

The court allowed the plaintiffs to depose Schopf, but limited the deposition to the facts underlying his letters to the plaintiffs’ broker. The plaintiffs may not question Schopf about attorney-client communications between him and Aspen. The court entered the order on the parties’ discovery dispute.