Kumar v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
- J. Cisneros
- 3:22-cv-03852
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Kumar v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Judge J. Cisneros ordered more briefing on Nationwide’s privilege claims in a discovery dispute.
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company and the plaintiffs, because the order required additional briefing and supporting materials concerning Nationwide’s privilege log and withheld claim-related documents and communications.
What happened
Kumar v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company concerns a dispute over Nationwide’s privilege log and its withholding of documents and communications related to the plaintiffs’ insurance claim. The plaintiffs argued that Nationwide could not protect its claims-handling process merely by assigning an attorney to perform claims-adjusting work.
The court ordered Nationwide to file a letter brief of no more than three pages, supported by declarations or other documentation, showing at the initial level required that attorney-client privilege and work-product protection applied to the withheld materials. Nationwide was also ordered to explain its relationship with Julian Pardini and Pardini’s role in processing and handling the claim. The plaintiffs could file a response of no more than three pages, with supporting materials, and the court scheduled a videoconference hearing.
Judge J. Cisneros issued the discovery order on March 28, 2023. The order required Nationwide’s filing by April 1, 2023, the plaintiffs’ response by April 5, 2023, and set the hearing for April 6, 2023.
The detailed version
- Kumar v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company · No. 3:22-cv-03852
- J. Cisneros
- Mar. 28, 2023
Background
The parties submitted a joint discovery letter concerning the sufficiency of Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company’s privilege log and the grounds for withholding documents and communications relevant to the underlying action. The plaintiffs challenged Nationwide’s assertions of attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine concerning communications with Julian Pardini, an attorney retained by Nationwide while processing the plaintiffs’ insurance claim.
The plaintiffs argued that an insurer cannot shield its claims process from discovery simply by assigning an attorney to perform work that would otherwise be done by a claims adjuster. The opinion does not decide whether the privilege or work-product assertions ultimately apply.
Order
The court ordered Nationwide to file a letter brief of no more than three pages making a prima facie showing that attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine apply to the documents it withheld. A prima facie showing is an initial showing sufficient to support the claimed protections at this stage. Nationwide was directed to include any declarations or documentation describing its relationship with Mr. Pardini and his role in processing and handling the plaintiffs’ insurance claim.
Nationwide’s filing was due no later than Saturday, April 1, 2023, at 12:00 p.m. The plaintiffs were permitted to file a responsive letter brief of no more than three pages by Wednesday, April 5, 2023, and could include declarations or other documentation opposing Nationwide’s privilege and work-product assertions. The court scheduled a hearing for Thursday, April 6, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. by Zoom videoconference.
Disposition
Judge J. Cisneros ordered additional briefing and scheduled a hearing on the discovery dispute. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied the plaintiffs’ challenge to Nationwide’s privilege assertions.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.