CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A West Virginia federal magistrate judge on June 30 said that documents created by an insured after a property insurer denied coverage for the collapse of the insured’s silo are protected because the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation (Ramaco Resources LLC v. Federal Insurance Co., et al., No. 19-703, S.D. W.Va., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113813).
PHILADELPHIA — The Pennsylvania federal judge overseeing the Avandia multidistrict litigation on June 26 said that while there are bases for criticizing the conduct of counsel for a third-party payer plaintiff, defendant GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK) did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that the payer’s two attorneys acted in bad faith so as to justify sanctions against them (Allied Services Division Welfare Fund v. GlaxoSmithKline, No. 09-730, E.D. Pa.).
GEORGETOWN, Del. — A Delaware state court judge on June 29 sanctioned attorneys representing a chicken processing plant $28,320.25 for “inappropriate conduct” regarding violations of discovery protocol in a groundwater contamination case brought by a class of residents who allege that the plant’s disposal of wastewater has damaged their health (Gary and Anna-Marie Cuppels, et al. v. Mountaire Corporation, et al., No. S18C-06-009 ESB, Del. Super., Sussex Co.).
BOSTON — Reinsurers ask a Massachusetts federal court in a June 26 memorandum to compel an insurer to provide documents that would explain how the insurer allocated in its reinsurance billings a $120 million settlement involving environmental claims against its insured (Certain London Market Company Reinsurers v. Lamorak Insurance Co., No. 18-10534, D. Mass.).
NEW YORK — A federal judge in New York on June 23 partly granted a motion challenging a Spanish company’s subpoenas for financial records to enforce an arbitral award of more than $2 billion against the Arab Republic of Egypt in a gas plant dispute by narrowing the subpoena for records that the judge found was overbroad and quashing the subpoena for in-person testimony (In Re: Petition of Union Fenosa Gas, S.A, No. 20-171, S.D. N.Y., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110312).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A District of Columbia federal magistrate judge recommended June 22 that trustees of the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) pension plan proceed with jurisdictional discovery against a Bermuda reinsurance and insurance company over alleged violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act regarding the failure to make $934 million in withdrawal liability payments (Michael H. Holland, et al. v. Cardem Insurance Company Ltd., No. 19-02362, D. D.C.).
ROCHESTER, N.Y. — A health insurance provider that has been sued by a group of its policyholders over a 2013 data breach moved for a protective order in New York federal court on June 16, seeking to prevent the plaintiffs from deposing its chief information officer (CIO) for a third time (Matthew Fero, et al. v. Excellus Health Plan Inc., et al., No. 6:15-cv-06569, W.D. N.Y.).
SHERMAN, Texas — A federal judge in Texas on June 17 denied JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A.’s motion to compel production of disclosure statements submitted to the government by four relators in a False Claims Act (FCA) suit accusing the lender of falsely certifying compliance with the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP), holding that the documents are protected by the work product doctrine and that the bank failed to show that it has substantial need for the information (United States, ex rel. Michael Fisher, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., No. 16-cv-395, E.D. Texas, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106564).
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. on June 16 asked a Virginia federal court to reconsider a ruling in which it denied the agency’s motion to intervene in a discovery matter in a multidistrict litigation over a 2019 data breach experienced by Capital One Financial Corp., contending that it is entitled to defend as privileged certain documents requested by the plaintiffs (In re Capital One Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 1:19-md-02915, E.D. Va.).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — A civil liberties organization that sued the Federal Trade Commission under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) regarding documents filed with the commission by Facebook Inc. over its data privacy practices received an unfavorable ruling in its quest for attorney fees on June 16 by a District of Columbia federal magistrate judge, who opined in a report and recommendation that the plaintiff did not establish entitlement to fees under the catalyst theory of causation (Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 1:18-cv-00942, D. D.C.).
GEORGETOWN, Del. — A chicken processing plant on June 15 filed a brief in Delaware state court contending that it is “improper and unwarranted” for the members of a groundwater contamination class action to seek sanctions for alleged violations of discovery protocol (Gary and Anna-Marie Cuppels, et al. v. Mountaire Corporation, et al., No. S18C-06-009 ESB, Del. Super., Sussex Co.).
TUCSON, Ariz. — An Arizona federal magistrate judge on June 15 partially granted a disability claimant’s motion to strike corrections to the deposition of a disability insurer’s physician after determining that only corrective changes to the deposition are permitted and not contradictory changes to answers provided in the deposition (Herbert Jalowsky M.D. v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co., et al., No. 18-279, D. Ariz., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104311).
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. — A federal magistrate judge in Illinois on June 12 denied a heating and air conditioning subcontractor’s attempt to quash a subpoena from insurers in their coverage dispute over defects in a facility for The Salvation Army (The Phoenix Insurance Company, et al. v. S.M. Wilson & Co., et al., No. 20-3063, C.D. Ill., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103093).
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on June 15 denied a motion by generic drug manufacturers to review an antitrust multidistrict litigation court’s order that they produce documents even if the defendants think the documents are irrelevant or nonresponsive (Actavis Holdco US, Inc., et al. v. Connecticut, et al., No. 19-1010, U.S. Sup.).
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in California on June 9 held that defendants have waived attorney-client privilege as to all attorney-client communications regarding the legal advice from outside counsel and in-house counsel concerning the legality of a late fee in a lawsuit alleging that the defendants violated California’s Civil Code Section 1671(d) and Business and Professions Code Section 17200 by charging tenants the greater of $50 or 5 percent of their outstanding balance for late rent payments (Javanni Munguia-Brown, et al. v. Equity Residential, et al., No. 16-01225, N.D. Calif., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101784).
CHARLESTON, S.C. — A South Carolina federal judge on June 8 denied a motion to stay discovery for use before a private arbitral tribunal that is hearing an aircraft engine fire dispute, despite one party planning to file a petition for a writ of certiorari on the issue, because the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals’ reversal of the judge’s prior ruling serves as an implicit mandate that requires the court to deny the stay (In re: Servotronics Inc., No. 18-364, D. S.C., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99991).
SAN FRANCISCO — A discovery request for all source code related to Facebook Inc.’s Messenger app was deemed too broad by a California federal magistrate judge, who on June 11 instead directed the social network to just submit source code related to the app’s features at issue in the privacy and data access claims over data-scraping activities carried out by the app (Lawrence Olin, et al. v. Facebook Inc., No. 3:18-cv-01881, N.D. Calif.).
LOS ANGELES — Following remand, a franchisee of a frozen yogurt restaurant argues in June 8 opposition briefs that a California federal court should refuse to dismiss its breach of contract suit and allow discovery (Cantran Group, Inc. v. CUPS, LLC, et al., No. 18-2044, C.D. Calif.).
NEW ORLEANS — A federal judge in Louisiana on June 9 granted in part the federal government’s motion in limine seeking to preclude defendant companies in an Oil Pollution Act of 1990 lawsuit from introducing evidence regarding submissions to the U.S. Coast Guard under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the timeliness of its responses, holding that the information cannot be used to assert a spoliation claim because the companies never previously raised the argument (United States v. ERR LLC, et al., No. 19-2340, E.D. La., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100593).
SAN FRANCISCO — A group of Chinese entities in a June 4 answer brief to the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals argue that a district court did not err or abuse its discretion in allowing discovery of the financial records of a Chinese woman and three California-based entities she manages for use in a private commercial arbitration tribunal in China as such tribunals have been repeatedly established as within the scope of the statute governing discovery for use in foreign proceedings (HRC-Hainan Holding Company, LLC, et al. v. Yihan Hu, et al., No. 20-15371, 9th Cir.).