United States District Court, D. Connecticut
ITT CORPORATION ET AL.
TRAVELERS CASUALTY & SURETY CO.
RULING FOLLOWING IN CAMERA REVIEW OF WAISMAN AND
Glazer Margolis United States Magistrate Judge
factual and procedural history behind this litigation is set
forth in considerable detail in this Magistrate Judge's
Ruling on Pending Discovery Issues, filed January 27, 2017
(Dkt. #191), 2017 WL 385034, Ruling on Pending Discovery
Issues Regarding Depositions, filed February 14, 2017 (Dkt.
#202)[“February 2017 Discovery Ruling”], 2017 WL
589192, and Ruling Following In Camera Review of Wigmore
Memo, filed February 27, 2017 (Dkt. #203), 2017 WL 750693.
February 2017 Discovery Ruling held plaintiffs are entitled
to take the deposition of Sonia Waisman, who is and has been
since 2003 representing Travelers in the parallel coverage
action between the parties in the Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles, set for trial on June 20, 2017,
because defendant listed Attorney Waisman in its Rule 26(a)
disclosures of individuals who possess discoverable
information to support its defenses, as required by
Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i). 2017 WL 589192, at *2-3. With
respect to the secondary issue regarding defendant's and
Attorney Waisman's objections to the document requests
served upon Attorney Waisman, and defendant's failure to
provide a privilege log when it objected to the document
requests in their entirety, the February 2017 Discovery
Ruling ordered defendant to produce the responsive documents
to this Magistrate Judge's Chambers, for her in
camera review, on the basis of attorney-client privilege
and work product privilege, by March 3, 2017. Id. at
February 2017 Discovery Ruling also addressed the deposition
of Stephen Sennott, defendant's former employee who
testified in another lawsuit pending in the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, Goulds v. Travelers.
Id. at *2, 4. The Ruling similarly ordered defendant
to produce Sennott's responsive documents to this
Magistrate Judge's Chambers, for her in camera
review, on the basis of attorney-client privilege and work
product privilege, by March 3, 2017. Id. at *4, n.9.
with this Ruling, on March 3, 2017, defendant delivered two
large binders of documents to this Magistrate Judge's
Chambers, one each for Attorney Waisman and for Sennott.
Within each binder was a directory of people who sent and
received the documents to which a privilege was asserted,
well as a privilege log, dated February 23, 2017.
binder for Attorney Waisman consisted of thirty-seven
documents, covering 335 pages. After a careful in
camera review, the Magistrate Judge finds that the
following six documents are not privileged and copies must be
provided to plaintiffs' counsel: Nos. 11-15, and
Defendant shall provide copies to plaintiffs' counsel
on or before April 3, 2017. The remaining documents,
however, are privileged (Nos. 1-10, 16, and 18-37) and need
not be produced.
binder consisted of 185 documents, covering 1, 463 pages.
After a careful in camera review, the Magistrate
Judge finds that the following nineteen documents are not
privileged and copies must be provided to plaintiffs'
counsel: Nos. 6, 8-9, 21-22, 32-33, 42- 44, 55, 109-10,
112-13, 117-18, and 181-82. Defendant shall provide copies to
plaintiffs' counsel on or before April 3, 2017.
The remaining documents, however, are privileged (Nos. 1-5,
7, 10-20, 23-31, 34-41, 45-54, 56-108, 111, 114-16, 119-44,
151, 158-61, 164, 167-80, and 183-85) and need not be produced.
not a Recommended Ruling, but a ruling on a non-dispositive
motion, the standard of review of which is specified in 28
U.S.C. § 636; Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a) & 72; and Rule 72.2 of
the Local Rules for United States Magistrate Judges. As such,
it is an order of the Court unless reversed or modified by
the District Judge upon timely made objection. The two
binders will remain in this Magistrate Judge's Chambers,
unless otherwise requested by Judge Arterton or counsel.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(written objections to ruling must be
filed within fourteen calendar days after service of same);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a) & 72; Rule 72.2 of the Local Rules for
United States Magistrate Judges, United States District Court
for the District of Connecticut; Impala v. United States
Dept. of Justice, __ F. App'x __, 2016 WL 6787933
(2d Cir. Nov. 15, 2016)(summary order)(failure to file timely
objection to Magistrate Judge's recommended ruling will
preclude further appeal to Second Circuit); cf. Small v.
Sec'y, H&HS, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989)(failure
to file timely objection to Magistrate Judge's
recommended ruling may preclude further appeal to Second
Id. at *3, n.7.
In all likelihood, plaintiffs'
counsel already has copies of some of these documents. It
goes without saying that the Protective Order in place in
this litigation shall govern any documents that relate to
insureds other than plaintiffs.
Insofar as Sennott testified at the
Goulds trial in Los Angeles, the Magistrate Judge is assuming
that Sennott will be a testifying expert in this trial, so
that Nos. 6, 8-9, 21-22, 32-33, 42-44, 109-10, 112-13,
117-18, and 181-82 are all discoverable. See, e.g., On
Time Aviation, Inc. v. Bombardier Capital, Inc., 04 CV
1765 (JBA), 2006 WL 2092075, at *1-2 (D. Conn. July 26,
2006)(redacting out only those portions of time records of
plaintiff's consultant/expert witness that revealed
privileged communications “relating to research,
strategy, and preparation of the case”). See also
Bankers' Bank Ne. v. Berry Dunn McNeil & Parker,
LLC, No. 1:12 CV 127 (GZS), 2014 WL 1320875 (D. Me. Mar.
28, 2014)(plaintiffs required to disclose the time and
billing records of their expert witness to defendants);
Fuller v. Unum Grp., No. 2:13 MC 140 (DBH), 2013 WL
5967019 (D. Me. Nov. 8, 2013)(expert witness who had been
retained more than 360 times and has testified against
insurance companies in more than seventy cases alleging bad
faith was not ...