ALC Power Road LLC v. Nationwide General Insurance Company

1 WO 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 ALC Power Road LLC, No. CV-23-02591-PHX-KML 10 Plaintiff, ORDER v. Nationwide General Insurance Company, et al., Defendants.

15 On October 25, 2024, the court resolved five discovery disputes. (Doc. 50.) One involved plaintiff ALC Power Road LLC’s request for production of unredacted “claim notes” for what the parties call the second claim. (Doc. 50 at 2.) Defendant Nationwide General Insurance Company had produced a privilege log and the court concluded ALC had “not established any basis to require Nationwide produce the documents on that privilege log.” (Doc. 50 at 2.) On November 8, 2024, ALC filed a fourteen-page motion for reconsideration arguing Nationwide had waived the attorney-client privilege such that it should be required to produce the unredacted “claim notes.” If production was not ordered, ALC requested the court conduct an in camera review of the notes or at least require Nationwide “amend its privilege log” to provide more information. (Doc. 52 at 14.)

25 Nationwide’s response argues the motion is procedurally improper and substantively baseless. Nationwide is correct.

27 A motion for reconsideration should not ask the court “to rethink what the court had already thought through—rightly or wrongly.” Harrington v. Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc., 713 F. Supp. 3d 568, 576 (D. Ariz. 2024) (quotation marks and citation omitted). || In addition, it is inappropriate to file a motion for reconsideration to avoid limitations on 3|| how discovery disputes must be presented. And it is particularly inappropriate to file a motion for reconsideration regarding a discovery dispute the parties have not yet discussed.

5 || ALC’s motion violates all three of these basic precepts.

6 Despite providing extensive briefing far beyond the court’s page limits for discovery 7\| matters, ALC has not established Nationwide impliedly waived the attorney client || privilege. Any disputes regarding the specificity of the privilege log are not yet ripe. If the 9|| parties cannot reach agreement regarding the privilege log, they must meet and confer before filing a joint statement that complies with the court’s orders. (See Doc. 50 at 6.) The || court will resolve properly-presented discovery disputes, but it will not consider the same || dispute multiple times or wade into discovery disagreements the parties have not even || attempted to resolve on their own.

14 Accordingly, 15 IT IS ORDERED the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 52) is DENIED.

16 Dated this 20th day of November, 2024.

18 WV, hy op a | G. / 19 ahh AE Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 20 United States District Judge _2-