Mondragon v. Otto

Full title: EVELYN P. MONDRAGON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CLAY D. OTTO, et al.…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Mar 20, 2006

Civil Action No. 05-cv-02664-REB-MJW (D. Colo. Mar. 20, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 05-cv-02664-REB-MJW.

March 20, 2006

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL (DOCKET NO. 20)

MICHAEL WATANABE, Magistrate Judge

This matter is before the court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (docket no. 20). The court has reviewed the motion and response. In addition, the court has taken judicial notice of the court's file and has considered applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and case law. The court has also reviewed, in camera, the Amended Privilege Log and those documents contained in the Amended Privilege Log. The court now being fully informed makes the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Plaintiffs request that this court order Defendants to produce the claims file, including but not limited to those documents contained in the Defendants' Amended Privilege Log. Defendants argue that such documents contained in their Amended Privilege Log are protected by either the work product doctrine or the attorney-client privilege.

"A document is protected by the attorney client privilege if it reveals a communication between a client and an attorney, made in order to obtain or deliver legal assistance, that was intended to be treated as confidential." Aull v. Cavalcade Pension Plan, 185 F.R.D. 618, 624 (D. Colo. 1998) (citing In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 697 F.2d 277, 278 (10^th Cir. 1983)). Furthermore, "[a] document is protected by the work product privilege if it was prepared in anticipation of litigation by another party or that party's representative, and was intended to remain confidential." Id. "A party asserting a privilege has the burden of establishing that the privilege is applicable. A party asserting waiver of a privilege has the burden of establishing the waiver." Id.

After a careful review of the subject documents, in camera, as outlined in the Defendants' Amended Privilege Log, this court finds that the following documents are protected under the work product doctrine. They are Defendants' documents Bates stamped numbered LEAD 00326-00330, LEAD 00361-00365, LEAD 00366, LEAD 00367-00372, LEAD 00373, LEAD 00374-00375, LEAD 00376, LEAD 00377, and LEAD 00378. Furthermore, the court finds that the following Defendants' documents are protected under the attorney-client privilege. They are documents Bates stamped numbered LEAD 00379-00384 and LEAD 00385.

ORDER

Accordingly, based upon these findings of fact and conclusions of law, this court ORDERS:

1. That Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (docket no. 20) is DENIED.

2. That each party shall pay their own attorney fees and costs for this motion.

3. That the Defendants' Amended Privilege Log and the Amended Privilege Log documents shall be sealed and not opened except by further Order of Court.