1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Saeed Azghadi Samiee, an individual; and Case No. 2:20-cv-00303-APG-DJA 6 Samaneh Babaei-Karizani, an individual,

7 Plaintiffs, Order

8 v.

9 James River Insurance Company, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11 12 13 Before the Court is Defendant’s in-camera submission of its claim file as addressed at this 14 Court’s most recent hearing on August 5, 2021. (ECF No. 54). In that hearing, the Court asked 15 Defendant to submit an unredacted version of its claim file spanning from May 1, 2019 until 16 September 7, 2019 with highlights where Defendant had placed the redactions to determine part 17 of Plaintiff’s motion to compel. (ECF No. 38). The purpose of the in-camera review was to 18 determine whether Defendant’s redactions were appropriate or overbroad. Because the Court 19 finds that the redactions were appropriate, it denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel with respect to 20 the unredacted claims file from May 1, 2019 until September 7, 2019. 21 In-camera review is only appropriate after a party has submitted evidence supporting its 22 claim of privilege and protection and there must be a sufficient evidentiary showing creating a 23 legitimate issue as to application of the privilege or protection asserted. See Diamond State Ins. 24 Co. v. Rebel Oil Co., Inc.,

(D. Nev. 1994). In Nevada, a client has a 25 privilege to refuse to disclose confidential communications between the client’ representative and 26 the client’s lawyer made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services 27 to the client. See NRS 49.095. In insurance bad faith claims, the attorney-client privilege may 1 capacity of an insurance claims adjuster, rather than as a lawyer.” OOIDA Risk Retention Group, 2 Inc. v. Bordeaux, No. 3:15-cv-00081-MMD-VPC,

, at *7 (D. Nev. Feb. 3, 3 2016). The work product privilege in the context of insurance bad faith claims protects items 4 prepared with an eye toward eventual bad faith litigation. Aubeg v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. 5 Co., No. 2:14-cv-00635-GMN-GWF,

, at *3 (D. Nev. Oct. 30, 2014). 6 The scope of discovery includes nonprivileged matters that are relevant to a party’s claim 7 or defense and proportional to the needs of the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1). “Relevance” in 8 discovery, means material that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible 9 evidence.” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders,

(1978). “Information within 10 this scope of discovery need not be admissible in evidence to be discoverable.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 26(b)(1). 12 Here, having reviewed the redactions, the Court finds that they are appropriate. The 13 redactions made for the purpose of protecting the attorney-client privilege properly withhold 14 communications between Defendant’s representative and Defendant’s counsel for the purpose of 15 facilitating the rendition of legal services. Defendant’s attorney does not take the role of an 16 adjuster in these communications. 17 Other redactions are appropriate under the work-product doctrine because they summarize 18 the communications with the attorney and next steps suggested by the attorney. While certain 19 redacted portions of the claim file simply refer to ministerial or clerical actions regarding the 20 attorney communications, those items are irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this action and 21 need not be produced. Similarly, certain redacted items discuss the third-party passenger in 22 Plaintiff’s car at the time of the underlying accident. Plaintiff has not argued that the claim file 23 notes discussing the third-party’s claims are relevant to his claims or defenses in this action and 24 the Court’s review of these items does not reveal that they are. 25 Defendant’s redactions of the claim file spanning from May 1, 2019 until September 7, 26 2019 appropriate. The court thus denies Plaintiff’s motion to compel to the extent it seeks the 27 entire, un-redacted claim file. (ECF No. 38). Defendant need not produce the claim file spanning 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 38), to the 2 extent it requests the entire, un-redacted claim file, is denied. 3 4 DATED: October 8, 2021 5 DANIEL J. ALBREGTS 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27