Decker et al v. Chubb National Insurance Company et al
Jeffrey Decker and Maria Decker |
Chubb National Insurance Company and Chubb & Son Inc. |
1:2015cv00088 |
February 6, 2015 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
Cincinnati Office |
HAMILTON |
Susan J. Dlott |
Insurance |
12 U.S.C. ยง 635 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 45 ORDER following 44 Informal Discovery Conference regarding depositions/sworn statements taken by defense counsel; request for review of the claims file generated by coverage counsel including coverage counsel's Opinion and Recommendation to p ay of deny the claim authored prior to denial of Plaintiff's claims; request for written representation from defense counsel that there are no other files containing documents or other claims related information which were generated during the i nvestigation of the claim and kept outside the "official claims file"; and request that the Court permit an agreement between counsel to extend expert disclosures for (15) days in order to complete rescheduled depositions. Defendants shall submit documents to the Court for an in camera review by 10/6/2016. The Court grants the parties' respective requests for extensions of time as set forth in their joint discovery dispute agenda. Documents for in camera review by the Court due by 10/6/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 10/3/2016. (art) |
Filing 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 23 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, the Court finds the Boone exception to the attorney-client privilege applies to the claims file in this case.The opinion letter and time line documents con tained in File 8 are protected as work product and withheld from plaintiffs.All other claims file documents are to be produced to plaintiffs unless, within 20 days of any Order adopting the report and recommendation: Defendants identify by Bates num ber the documents they assert are clearly not relevant to the claims in this case, the basis for their conclusion that such documents are not relevant, and the evidence in support of their continued redaction or withholding from plaintiffs. Defendan ts identify by Bates number any documents contained in File 7 they assert are protected as work product, the basis for the work product protection, and the evidence in support of their continued withholding from plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 11/9/15. (wam) |
Filing 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that 1.) the Boone exception to the attorney-client privilege applies to the claims file in this case; 2.) The opinion letter and time line documents contained in File 8 (see note 6, supra) be protected as work product and w ithheld from plaintiffs; 3.) All other claims file documents be produced to plaintiffs unless, within (20) days of any order adopting the above two recommendations: a. Defendants identify by Bates number the documents they assert are "clearly n ot relevant" to the claims in this case, the basis for their conclusion that such documents are not relevant, and the evidenct in support of their continued redaction or witholding from plaintiffs. b. Defendants identify by Bates number any docu ments contained in File 7 they assert are protected as work product, the basis for the work product protection, and the evidence in support of their continued witholding from plaintiffs. Objections to R&R due by 11/2/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 10/14/2015. (art) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.