Kehle v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company, No. 9:2017cv80447 - Document 68 (S.D. Fla. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER granting in part and denying in part 60 Defendant USAA Casualty Insurance Company's Motion to Compel Better Discovery Responses. Signed by Magistrate Judge William Matthewman on 5/30/2018. (kza)

Download PDF

Kehle v. USAA Casualty Insurance Company Doc. 68 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CA SE N O .17-80447-CV -M A RRA /M A TTH EW M AN NELIDA KEHLE,asGuardian of AN TH ON Y KEHLE,111, FILED hy . C- Plaintiff, MAt 3 g 2213 VS. STEVEN M LARIMORE USAA CASUALTY W SURANCE COM PAN Y, CLERKUi Dls' ltcT. s. o.oFfi A.-w.ee. Defendant. ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT USAA C A SU ALTY IN SU R AN C E CO M PA NY 'S M O TIO N TO CO M PEL BETTER DISCOVERY RESPONSES IDE 601 THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant, USA A Casualty Insurance Company's(ttDefendanf')M otionto CompelBetterDiscoveryResponses.(DE 601.Thismatter wasreferred totheundersigned by United StatesDistrictJudge Kenneth A.M arraupon an Order refening all discovery matters to the undersigned for appropriate disposition. See DE 13. Plaintiff,NelidaKehle(ttplaintiff')filed aResponsetotheM otion (DE 63)and Defendantfled aReply (DE 641.TheCourtheld ahearingontheM otion onM arch 12,2018.TheCourthasalso carefully conducted an in camera review ofnum erous emailsatissue in this discovery dispute. The m atteris now ripe forreview . 1. IN TR O D U CTIO N Thisdiscovery dispute involvesDefendantUSAA 'Sdem and thatPlaintiffKehleproduce: a. Em ails,withheld by Plaintiffasprivileged work product,between M r.Steve Rothm an, Esq., w ho represented Plaintiff in the underlying state court Dockets.Justia.com litigation,and M r.RobertM ajor,Esq.and M r.Fred Ctmningham,Esq.,who currently representPlaintiffin the currentfederallitigation;and b. Additional infonnation requested in Interrogatories 17, 18, 19, and 22 of Defendant'sFirstSetofInterrogatories relating to M r.Henderson's consentto liability,the settlementagreement,andthe arbitration proceedings. The Courtassum esthe reader'sfam iliarity with its priorlengthy OrderatDE 49 which required production of certain docum ents requested by Defendant related to the hybridCo:len/z/arbitration agreem ent atissue in this case.1Afterthe entry ofthe Court'spriorOrder, certain docum ents were produced to Defendant, and Plaintiff served Am ended Discovery Responses in lightofthis Court'sOrder.Upon receiptofthose am ended responses,Defendant filed the pending M otion to Compel(DE 601which takes issue with the emailswithheld by Plaintiffaswork product,aswellas Plaintiffs responses to Interrogatories 17,18,19,and 22. Thisdisputesolely involvesthework-productprivilege.Plaintiffobjectsto thediscoverysought by D efendanton w ork-productprivilege grounds.D efendantassertsthatPlaintiffhas w aived any work-productprivilege dueto issueinjection and thatDefendanthasa substantialneed forthe docum entsand inform ation to presentitsdefensein thiscase. II. M OTION TO COM PEL.RESPONSE AND REPLY On Febnzary 22, 2018, Defendant tiled its M otion to Com pel Better D iscovery Responses.gDE 601.lnadditiontotheemailsrequested,thespecitk interrogatoriesatissueare: Interrozatorv N um ber 17: Paragraph 15 of the Com plaint in the U nderlying A ction (attached as Exhibit D to your Amended Complaint) states that Stldenderson was operating the Vesselwith and atthe direction of M tm son.''Paragraph 15 of the Second Amended Complaintin theUnderlying Action (attached asExhibitE to yolzrAmended Complaint)statesthatttllenderson wasoperatingtheVesselwith andasapersonalfavor 1See Orderon PlaintiffsM otion forProtectiveOrder(DE 491;Kehlev USAA Cas.Ins.Co., No.17-80447-CV,2017W L 6729186(S.D.Fla.Dec.28,2017) . to M unson.''Pleasestatewith specificity thefollowing: (a)The reasonts)and/orcircumstancets)which caused you to revise Paragraph 15; (b)Describe any discussionsand/orcommunicationsrelating to the revision of Paragraph 15;and (c)A listofanyand alldocumentsthatsupportyotlrrevisiontoParagraph 15. Interroaatoa Num ber 18:In the underlying action M r.Henderson,M r.M tm son,and NunciowereallegedlynegligentcausinginjurytoM r.Kehle.Pleasestatewith specificity thefollowing: (a) The reasonts), circumstancets), and supporting evidence supporting the assertion thatM r.Henderson,M r.M unson,and/orNuncio wasnegligent; (b)Theapportionmentoffaultyou believed wasattributableto M r.Henderson, M r.M unson,and/orNtmcio;and (c)Thespecificactsthatyoucontended Mr.Hendersonperfonnednegligently. Interrozatorv Num ber 19:In Paragraph 23 of the A m ended Com plaintyou allege that 'tthepartiesagreed to submitthe issue ofthe amountofdam ages sustained by M r.Kehle as a result of the negligence of Henderson to Binding Arbitration''.Please state with specificity the follow ing: (a) The reasons and/or circumstances the underlying action was submitted to Binding Arbitration,including who suggested Binding Arbitration and a listof docum entsrelatedthereto; (b)W hetherthe issueofnegligencewassubmitted to theBinding Arbitratorand if so please state the reasonts),circumstancets),and evidence supporting the assertion thatM r.H enderson; (c)The reasonts) and/or circllmstancets)why the issue ofnegligence was not subm itted to Binding Arbitration,including a listofany and alldocum entsrelated thereto; (d) Did M r.Henderson concede and/or admit negligence? Please state with specificity the following: i. The reasonts) and/or circumstancets) why Mr. Henderson conceded/admitted negligence,including a listof any and a11docum ents related thereto;and ii.Please describe and/or sum m arize any and a1lcom m unications w ith M r. Henderson relatingto hisconcession/adm ission ofnegligence. lnterroaatoa Num ber 22:Please state with specificity why M r.Courtney M unson and N uncio were dropped from the Underlying A ction, a list of any docum ents relating to them being dropped,and why no other defendant was dropped from the Underlying A ction. A.Defendant'sPosition asStated in ltsM otion and Reply Assetforth in itsM otion (DE 601,DefendantclaimsthatPlaintiffhaswaived allofher work-productobjectionsto the production ofthe emailsat issue and to the responsesto the interrogatoriesthrough the doctrineofissue injection.Defendantargues thatbecause Plaintiff seeksto recoverthe arbitration award through a Coblentz-stykn agreem ent,2 she has voluntarily assertedthatthesettlementagreementand arbitrationwerereasonableandin goodfaith.(DE 60, pgs.1-41.Because Plaintiffhasthe btlrden to prove the elementsofreasonableness and good faith in order to recoverundera Coblentz agreem ent,Defendantassertsthatitis Plaintiffwho hasinjected the issuesinto the case.1d.Therefore,Plaintiffshould notbepermittedto produce evidence directly related to the issuesofgood faith butsim ultaneously preventDefendantfrom related discovery to rebuffherclaims.(DE 60,pgs.5-61.Defendantassertsthatitisentitled to rebuffPlaintiffsclaims ofgood faith through çtbroad discovery''and the em ailcorrespondence at issue,generally categorized as téarbitration,'' ilsettlements''tddismissal''and ttstrategy,''is necessary to determine if the Coblentz agreementat issue was tainted by bad faith,fraud,or collusion.1d.at6. To support this contention, Defendant argues that Plaintiff has made the protected inform ation, specifically, the em ails betw een Plaintiff s prior and current counsel, highly relevanttothecasebecausetheem ailsshow thatcounselcolluded in bad faith againstDefendant USAA.(DE 60,pg.5).Defendantassertsthatitspreliminarydiscovery supportstheproposition thatthe attorneys in this case,nnmely,Mr.Rothman,M r.M ajor,M r.Culmingham,and M r. M ichael Knecht, Esq., counsel for Henderson, the insured, tdplotted together and jointly consulted bad faith attorneys.''1d.D efendant claim s that the attonw ys decided to dism iss M r. 2 The Court notes that the agreem ent at issue is not a true Coblentz agreement, rather, it is a hybrid Ctllenlz/arbitrationagreementasdiscussedintheCourt'spriorOrder(DE 49,pg.201. 4 M unson from the underlying lawsuit in bad faith,and failed to hire a courtreporter at the underlying arbitration in orderto concealtheirbad faith.1d. Finally,Defendantasserts thatbecause establishing thatbad faith,fraud,and collusion existed in the underlying settlement agreement is vital to its defense, Defendant should be entitled to broad discovery of the tiapproxim ately 909'em ails between M r.Rothman and M r. Major and M r.Cunninghnm.3 Defendantclaims thatthese emails tsgo to the very heartof reasonablenessand good faith''gDE 60,pg.61and allegesthatdenialofdiscovery into issues thatPlaintiffvoltmtarily injected intothecasewouldbemanifestly unfair.Id.Defendantasserts thatPlaintiff is the prim ary sotzrce of evidence thather attorneys licolluded with the insured againstU SAA ClC''in consenting to liability,entering into a settlem entagreem ent,and entering arbitration.Id Defendantarguesthatdenying itaccessto thishighly relevantinform ation would preclude Defendantfrom probing into the issues of bad faith,fraud,and collusion and would hinderitsability to defend itselfagainstPlaintiffsclaim s.Id B . Plaintifrs Position as Stated in H er Response Plaintifffiled herResponseon March2,2018.(DE 631.Plaintiffarguesthatshehasnot injectedtheissuesofbad faith,fraud,and collusionintothecasesimply by flingsuittoenforce aCoblentzagreement.(DE 63,pg.2).lnstead,sheclaims,itisDefendantwhohasinjectedthese issues into the litigation because Defendant is asserting bad faith, fraud, and collusion as aftirmative defenses.1d.Therefore,according to Plaintiff,Defendantbears the burden ofproof and istheinjectingparty.Id Plaintiffarguesthatthere isno blanketwaiverofprivilegemerely because she has filed suitto enforce a Coblentz agreem ent.1d.Plaintiff further argues thatthe emailsconstituteopinionworkproduct,whichçéenjoysanearly absoluteimmunity''andcan only 3 Although the parties discuss the emails as numbering ûtapproximately 99 '' there were 127 tabbed email correspondencessubm ittedtotheCourtforin cam erareview .Seef.n.4,infra. be discovered in very rare and extraordinary circumstances.Therefore,she daim sthatnone of theemailsshouldbeproducedtoDefendant.lDE 63,pg.5). C. D efendant'sPosition as Stated in ItsR eply DefendantthenfiledaReply gDE 641,inwhich itreiteratesitsargumentthatPlaintiffhas waivedherwork-productobjectionsbyinjedingtheissuesofgoodfaithandreasonablenessinto thiscase.gDE 64,pg.3).DefendantrequeststhattheCourtordertheemailsbeproducedandthe interrogatories atissue bt answered because both discovery requests tdgo to the very heartof whetherbadfaith,fraud,andcollusionarepresent''inthiscase.gDE 64,pg.5q. 111. IN C AM ER A R EV IEW In its M otion to Compel,Defendant sought an in camera review by the Courtof the em ailsatissue to determ ine ifPlaintiffhasimplicitly waived any privilege or ifthe em ails are protected work product.Atthe M arch 12,2018 hearing,the parties agreed to in camera review on an ex parte basisby the undersigned,and the Courttherefore directed Plaintiffto submitthe Cmai1s atissue.(DE 67j.Plaintiff submitted the emailson M arch 12,2018.4The Courthas carefully reviewed theem ailswhich areatthe centerofthisdiscovery dispute. IV. AN A LY SIS A . W ork ProductD octrine Plaintiffarguesthatthe withheld em ailsand interrogatory responsesare proteded by the work-productdoctrine and thatthe doctrine ofwaiverby issue injection doesnotapply.The Courtnotesthatthe only privilege Plaintiffhas asserted in the instantdispute isthe w ork-product 4The emails submitted to the Courtforin camera review are contained in two large binders. The firstbinder is tabbed 1-64,and thesecondbinderistabbed 65-127.AIlofthedocumentsareBatesstampedandwillbereferenced in this Orderby their respective Bates stamped numbers.Also,itshould be noted thatsome of the emails are duplicatesornearduplicates. privilege.Therefore,thisOrderonly addressestht issue ofwaiverofwork-produd privilege by issueinjection. As this is a federal diversity action, federal law governswork-productdoctrine issues.G uarantee Ins. Co. Heyernan Ins. Brokers, Inc.,No. 13-23881-CIV,2014 W L 5305581,at*2 (S.D.FIa.Oct.15,2014), .Sun CapitalPartners,Inc.v.Twin Cf/y FireIns.Co., No.12-81397-C1V,2015 W L 9257019,at*3 (S.D.FIa.Dec.18,2015).FederalRuleofCivil Procedure26(b)(3),whichsetsforththework-productdoctrine,statesinrelevantpart: (A)DocumentsandTangibleThings.Ordinarily,apm'tymaynotdiscoverdocumentsand tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for anotherparty oritsrepresentative (including the otherparty'sattorney,consultant, surety,indemnitor,insurer,oragent).But,subjectto Rule26(b)(4),those materials m aybediscovered if: 1.Theyareothem isediscoverableunderRule26(b)(1);and 2.The party shows that it has substantial need for the m aterials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantialequivalentby otherm eans. (B)ProtectionAgainstDisclostzre.Ifthecourtordersdiscoveryofthosematerials,itmust protect againstthe disclosure of the m entalim pressions,conclusions,opinions,or legaltheoriesofa party's attorney orotherrepresentative concerning the litigation. Fed.R.Civ.P.26(b)(3). Rule 26(b)(3) establishes two tiers of protection: first, work product prepared in anticipation oflitigation by an attorney orhisagentisdiscoverable only upon a showing ofneed and hardship; and second, ûûcore'' or Sçopinion''work productthat encom passes the ç%mental im pressions,conclusions,opinion,legaltheories ofan attorney orother representative ofa party conctrning the litigation''isçkgenerally afforded nearabsolute protection from discovery.''Kahn UnitedStates,No.13-24366-C1V,2015W L 4112081,at*4 (S.D.Fla.July 8,2015)(citingfn reCendantCorp.Sec.Litig.,343 F.3d 658(3d Cir.2003)(citingFed.R.CW.P.26(b)(3)andInre FordMotorCo.,110F.3d 954,962n.7 (3d Cir.1997)). FACT W ORK PRODUCT Factwork productincludesa1ldocum ents,inform ation,and tangiblethingsprepared and gathered inanticipation oflitigation orfortrial.Sternv.O'Quinn,253F.R.D.663,685(S.D.FIa. 2008).Theparty seeking such discovery mustshow aitsubstantialneed''and tçunduehardship'' in obtaining the materials or their substantial equivalent by other m eans under Rule 26(b)(3)(A)(ii).Callaway v.Papa John' s USA,Inc.,No.09-61989-C1V,2010 W L 4024883,at *7(S.D.Fla.Od.12,2010). OPIN ION W O RK PR OD U CT Opinion work product encom passes a1l material that reflects the m ental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerningthelitigation.Fed.R.Civ.P.26(b)(3);Williamson v.Moore,221D.3d 1177,1182 (citingHickman v.Taylor,329U.S.495,67 S.Ct.385,393,91L.Ed.451(1947:.Rule26(b)(3) provides that, even if the party seeking discovery of inform ation otherwise protected by thework-productdoctrinehas m ade the requisite showing ofneed and undue hardship,courts muststillprotectagainstthe disclosure ofopinion work product.Kahn,2015 W L 4112081,at*4 (citingln re CendantCorp.Sec.Litig.,343 F.3d 658 (3d Cir.2003)).In the Eleventh Circuit, opinionworkproductenjoysanearly absoluteimmunity andcanbediscovered onlyinveryrare and extraordinary circum stances.Cox v.Administrator U.S.Steel(Q Carnegie,17 F.3d 1386, 1421(11th Cir.1994);SeefakeShoreRadiator)Inc.v.RadiatorExpress Warehouse,2007W L 842989, *4 (M .D.Fla.2007)Csopinion work product is absolutely immune from discovery.''l;Underwriterslns.Co.v.Atlanta GasLightCo.,248F.R.D.663,2008W L 489016, *6 (N.D.Ga.2008)($:gT)he literaltextofRule 26(b)(3)and itsintemretation by courtsin this circuitsuggestthatthe Rule provides an absolute barto discovering the m entalim pressionsof an 8 attorneyorrepresentative.'').Federalwork-productimmunity extendsto documentsprepared in anticipation ofunderlying state courtlitigation.M ilinazzo,247 F.R.D .at700. B. A t-lssue W aiver Thesubject-matterwaiverdoctrineprovidesthatapartywhoinjectsintothecaseanissue thatin fairness requiresan exam ination ofcommunicationsotherwise protected by the attorneyclientprivilege loses thatprivilege.Cox v.Adm ' r U S.Steel(f Carnegie,17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir.1994) (citingGAB Bus. Senw, Inc. v.Syndicate 627,809 F.2d 755, 762 (11th Cir.1987)).itg-l-lhe plain language ofFed.R.CiV.P.26(b)(3)suggeststhatopinion work product should notbe subjectto such an impliedwaiver,andthattherationalebehind thedoctrine(the fearthataparty mightlmake affirmative testimonialuse'ofa comm unication and then seek to shield itfrom disclosure)doesnotapplyto mentalimpressionsand legaltheories.''Cox,17F.3d at1422 (citingIn reM artin Marietta Corp.t856 F.2d619,626 (4th Cir.1988),cer/.denie4 490 U.S.1011 (1989)(quotingDuplan Corp.v.Deering M illiken,Inc.,540 F.2d 1215,1223 (4th Cir.1976)).The doctrine ofçsat-issue''waiver rests on the principle offainwss.Maplewood Partners,L.P.v.lndianHarborlns.Co.,295F.R.D.550,624(S.D.FIa.2013). lnCox,the Eleventh Circuit stated thatthe tçsubjectmatterwaiver doctrine does not extend to m aterials protected by the opinion work product privilege.''Cox, 17 F.3d at 1422 (citingIn reMartin Marietta Corp.,856F.2d 619,625-26 (4th Cir.1988)).Cox considered the Cévery rare and extraordinary circum stances'' under which opinion work product can be discovered.The Eleventh Circuitfound thatthe crim e-fraud exception presented one ofthe very rare and exceptionalcircum stancesin which opinion work productisdiscoverable,butdeclined to declare the subject matter waiver doctrine as a rare and exceptional circumstance.f#. However,severalcourtshave held,subsequentto Cox,thata party can waive its opinion work- productprivilegepursuantto thedoctrine ofat-issuewaiverifitconcernsthe mentalimpressions and opinionsofcounselin the contextofbad faith litigation.See Tolzv.Geico Gen.Ins.Co.,No. 08-80663-C1V,2010W L 384745(S.D.FIa.Jan.27,2010)(uponpropershowing,an instlrermay be entitled to discoverwork-productm aterials contained in the file ofcounselwho represented theinsured in theunderlyingaction);seeMaplewood Partners,L.P.v.Indian Harborlns.Co., No.08-23343-C1V,2011W L 3918597,at*2 (S.D.Fla.Sept.6,2011),adhered to on denialof reconsideration,295 F.R.D.550 (S.D.Fla.2013) (finding that plaintiffs had waived work- productprotectionbyputtingtheirattorneys'assessmentsatissuel;Sternv.O 'Quinn,253F.R.D. 663, 676-77 (S.D.F1a 2008) (applying the at-issue doctrine as a waiver of opinion work product);Batchelorv.GeicoCas.Co.,No.6:11-CV-1071-ORI,,2014W L 3697691,at*4 (M .D. Fla.Apr.22,2014),affd,No.6:11-CV-1071-ORL-37,2014 W L 3687490 (M .D.Fla.June 20, 2014)(allowing theproduction ofopinion work productthatdirectly related to the attempted settlementofplaintiffsinsuranceclaim,whichwasthesubjectoftheinstantaction). In Tolz v.Geico Gen.Ins.Co.,No.08-80663-C1V,2010 W L 384745 (S.D.FIa.Jan.27, 2010),theHonorableUnited StatesDistrictJudgeKemwth A.M arraconsideredwhethertheatissue doctrine applied to an attorney's thoughts and m entalim pressions in the contextof bad faith litigation.In that case,a plaintiff sued defendant GEICO for acting in bad faith in the handling ofthe underlying state claim .1d.at*1.A s an affinnative defense,GEICO asserted that aparty in the underlying case (sçGranados'')tmreasonably refused to acceptGEICO'Stenderof the policy lim its.Id GEICO m oved to com pelthe production ofthe litigation filesm aintained by the 1aw firm (sûsearcy'')who represented Granadosin the underlying lawsuit.1d.Specifically, GEICO sought Ctall docum ents and things related to the form ulation and presentation of settlem entdem ands and offers,and the determ ination ofthe value ofGranados'claim s.''1d TheHonorableUnited StatesM agistrateJudge LinneaJohnson granted GEICO'Srequest, reasoning that: thethoughtsand mentalimpressionsofGranadosand her attorneys with respect to the underlying proceeding are directly relevantto the instant action for bad faith, as such thoughts and mental impressions provide the best evidence of whetherGranadosunreasonably refused to acceptthepolicy limitsand,ifshedid, whetherGEICO had a reasonable opportunity to settlethe claim .The focusison thesubstanceofthe infonnation soughtin the underlying action and whetherthat infonnation sheds light on the determinative issues involved in the present liligation,notwhich pm ies'thoughtsand m entalimpressionsareinvolved. Tolzv.GEICO Gen.Ins.Co.,No.08-80663-ClV,2010 W L 11509325,at*1(S.D.Fla.Feb.9, 2010). Searcyobjeded to M agistrateJudgeJohnson'sruling,butJudgeM arrafoundthatJudge Johnson's ruling regarding opinion w ork product çtcannot be said to be clearly erroneous or contraryto law.''JudgeM arraupheldthemagistratejudge'sfindingthatçiopinionworkproduct isnot inviolate and may be invaded when the inform ation contained within the work-product materials is directly at issue,''and further,that such information is often ûsdirectly atissue in casesagainstan instlrerforalleged violationsofthe dgty ofgood faith.''Tolz,2010 W L 384745 at *4.Because the claim ant's unw illingness to settle the claim w as relevant as to w hether the insurer acted in bad faith,the courtfotmd that the insurer,upon the proper showing,m ay be entitled to discoverwork-productmaterialscontained within the tile ofcounselwho represented the insured in the underlying liability action.Id ;See Batchelor,N o.6:11-CV -1071-O RL,2014 W L 3697691,at*4. The M aplewood Partners court also found that a party can waive its opinion workproductprivileges ifthe inform ation soughtconcernsthe m entalim pressions and opinionsofthe parties'attonw ysin bad faith litigation through at-issue w aiver.M aplewood Partners,L.P.,2011 W L 3918597, at *7.ln that case,the courtallow ed discovery into an attorney's opinion w ork productpertaining to çsestimates,evaluations, and/or assessm ents'' of potential legal liability and/or settlement values in a suit solely for breach of contract of a directors and officers insurance policy to indemnify the costofdefense fees and judgmentorsettlementamounts, because itwas relevantto the plaintiffs claim that the defendant failed to fairly allocate the covered loss. Both Fofz and M aplewood Partners demonstrate thatthere are certain situations,often involving cases againstan instlrerforalleged violations ofthe duty ofgood faith,or,asin the instantcase,alleged violationsof the duty ofgood faith and reasonableness on the partofthe plaintiff,orcollusion,wherethe doctrineofat-issuewaivercould constitute oneoftheStvery rare and extraordinazy circumstances''in which opinion work product may be discoverable.The Courtnotesthatthe doctrine oftdat-issue''waiverrests on the principle offaim ess.M aplewood Partners,295 F.R.D.at624.Asnoted in Tolz,4fthe work-produd privilege is notinviolate and m ay be invaded when the inform ation contained w ithin the w ork-productm aterials is directly at issue.''2010 W L 384745 at*4. The instantcaseinvolvesalleged violationsofthe duty ofgood faith and reasonableness on the partofPlaintiff.Itwould beunfairto preventDefendantfrom discovery into infonnation w hich could potentially shed lighton the alleged bad faith condud ofthe parties,or lack ofgood faith and unreasonableness,when it is Plaintiff who is inserting the issues ofreasonableness and good faithoftheagreementintothiscase.SeeBradheldv.M id-continentCasualty Company,15 F.Supp.3d 1253 (M .D.Fla.2014)(holding thatifplaintiffsmustintroduceevidenceasto the reasonableness and lack ofbad faith in orderto prevail,they cannotthen hidebehind the shield ofprivilegeto preventdefendantfrom effectively challengingsuch evidence).Therefore,ifthe em ails in dispute indeed contain inform ation which isdirectly relevantto the good faith basis or reasonablenessofthe hybrid Coblentz agreem envarbitration award,the at-issue waiverdoctrine may apply.See Tolz,2010 W L 384745 at#4;M aplewood Partners,L.P., 2011W L 3918597,at *7.Thisisonly fair. C . PlaintiffK ehle'sA t-lssueW aiver in the lnstantC ase Toestablish thatPlaintiffhasindeed waivedheropinion work-productobjectionstothe em ails which pertain to the good faith and reasonableness of the hybrid Coblentz agreem ent/arbitration award betw een Plaintiff and M r.Henderson,Defendantm ust satisfy the tllree-partH earn test. Hearnv.Rhay,68 F. R.D.574(E.D.W ash.1975).5 A partyw aivesw ork- productprotection when (1)assertionoftheprotectionsresultsfrom someaffirmativeactbythe party invoking the protection;(2) through this affirmative act,the asserting party puts the protected information atissue by making itrtlevantto the case;and (3)application of the protection would deny the opposing party access to information vitalto its defense.Stern v . O 'Quinn,253F.R.D.663,676 (S.D.FIa.2008)(citingGranitePartners,L.P.v.Bear,Stearnsto Co., Inc.,184 F.R.D. 49, 55 (S.D.N.Y.1999)(citingHearnv. Rhay,68 F.R.D. 574, 581 (E.D.W ash.1975)). The CourttsndsthatDefendanthasm etthe tsrstelem entoftheHearn testbecause ithas shown that the assertion of the opinion work-product privilege was aftsrmatively raised by Plaintiffwhenshefiledthelawsuit.SeeBradjleld,15F.Supp.3dat1257.Here,Plaintiff,whois thepartyinvokingthework-productprotection,willhavetomakeaprimafacieshowingthatthe hybrid Coblentz agreem ent/azbitration aw ard w as reasonable and m ade in good faith in order to enforce the agreem ent.1d.Therefore,Plaintiffcannottdhide behind the shield of privilege''to preventDefendantfrom effectively challenging the evidence she presents. 1d. 5TheHearn testhasbeen adoptedbytheEleventhCircuit. SeeCoxv.Adm 'rUnitedStatesSteeltt Carnegie,17 F.3d 1386(11thCir.1994). Defendanthasm etthe second elem entofthe Hearn testby dem onstrating thatPlaintiff has putthe protected information atissue by m aking itrelevantto this case. (DE 60,pg.51. Plaintiffhasm adetheem ailsbetween Plaintiff sform ercotmseland hercurrentcounselrelevant to thiscase because she mustshow thatthehybrid Coblentz agreem ent/arbitration award wasnot tainted with fibad faith,fraud,or collusion.''1#.Afterreviewing the disputed em ails in camera, on an expartebasis,theCourtfindsthatcertain ofthe em ailsconstitute factwork product,while others constitute opinion work product,and others contain both factand opinion work produd . Asto those relevantemails which constitute factwork product,the Courtfinds thatDefendant has established substantial need and an inability to obtain the materials or their substantial equivalentby otherm eans.Asto therelevantem ailswhich constitute opinion work product, the Courtfindsthatcertain ofthethoughtsand mentalim pressionsofthe attorneysin thiscasewith respect to the settlem ent agreem ent and the arbitration aw ard are directly reltvant to the good faith and remsonableness ofthe agreem entand award.They are also relevantto allegations of collusion.Certain ofthe emailswould provide the bestevidence ofwhetherM r.Henderson, the insured,tilied down''during the underlying negotiations,and ifhe did,whetherhe and Plaintiff Kehle made the hybrid Coblentz agreem ent/arbitration award in bad faith.They are also relevant to whether the reasons Plaintiff chose to dismiss M unson and Nlm cio were tainted by fraud, collusion,or bad faith. Defendant has a need for these documents and cannot obtain them elsew here. Finally,the Court finds that allow ing Plaintiff to m aintain her w ork-product privilege would deny USAA accessto information vitalto its defense because itwould preclude USAA from probing into the prim ary source of evidence of alleged bad faith,fraud, and collusion. Plaintiff has brought a breach of contract action and seeks to enforce the hybrid Coblentz agreement/arbitration award againstDefendantUSA A in the amotmtof $8,818,804.As stated above,the spirit of the at-issue w aiver doctrine is to encourage fairness. Enforcing the hybrid Coblentz agreement/arbitration award requires Plaintiffto establish,by a prima facie showing, thatthehybrid Coblentzagreem ent/arbitration award wasreasonableand madein good faith, but the ultimate burden ofproofwillrestwith USAA.See Wrangen v Pennsylvania Lumbermans . Mut.Ins.Co.,593F.Supp.2d 1273,1279(S.D.Fla.2008) (citing Chomatv.NorthernIns.Co. ofNew York,919 So.2d 535,538(F1a.3dDCA.2006)).Itwouldbemanifestlytmfairtoprohibit Defendant from discovery into the com mtmications between Plaintiffs form er and current attorneys regarding the settlem ent agreement,the arbitration proceedings,and the arbitration award which are directly relevantto the reasonableness and good faith ofthe hybrid Coblentz agreemenfarbitration award,andto issuesofalleged collusion. As stated in the Court's priorOrder (DE 49,pg.201,the Courtwillnot tthnmstring Defendant USAA from pursuing discovery into whether the settlem entbetween Plaintiff and Henderson was reasonable,in good faith,or a sham .''To notallow Defendantdiscovery into specific areas of the underlying lawsuit would deprive Defendant of its only source of infonnation needed to determine ifthe settlementagreementand arbitration award were in fact reasonable,free from collusion,and m adein good faith,and itwould indeed deny USAA access to inform ation vitalto itsdefense.Thus,Defendanthasm etthethird elementoftheHearn test. Therefore, the Court finds that, by seeking to enforce the hybrid Coblentz agreem ent/arbitration aw ard, Plaintiff has put ltat-issue''the parnm eters of the hybrid Coblentz agreement/arbitration award, including Plaintiffs agreement to dism iss M unson and Nuncio from the lawsuitandpermitthem to avoid any liability while seeking to im posea11liability upon DefendantUSAA.Plaintiffhaswaived heropinion work-productim munity solely overthe work productwhich containsinformation directly relevantto the good faith and reasonablenessofthe hybrid Coblentz agreement/arbitration award, and allegations of collusion. This includes infonnation pertaining to the dismissal of M unson, the facts and circum stances underlying Henderson and M unson'salleged liability,the agreementto proceed to arbitration beforea single arbitrator,andthe selection ofthearbitrator. V. C O N CLU SIO N ln lightof the foregoing,it is ORDERED thatDefendant's M otion to CompelBetter DiscoveryResponsesgDE 60)isGRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART,asfollows: The Court has conducted a careful in camera review of the disputed em ail com munications between Steven Rothm an, Esq., of Jones, Foster, Johnson, and Stubbs,P,A,who represented Plaintiffin theunderlying state courtlawsuit, and Fred Cunningham,Esq.,ofDominick Cunningham & W halen,and RobertM ajor,ofVer Ploeg & Lumpkin,P.A.who currently representPlaintiffin thisfederallaw suit. A s a threshold matter,the Courtfindsthatcertain ofthese em ails sim ply contain routine and mundane messagesorcomm tmicationsrelating to meeting tim es and scheduling issues and are largely irrelevant to this discovery dispute. The Courthas carefully culled through al1 the em ails in an effort to determ ine w hich em ails, in faim ess, should be produced. Certain emails are directly relevant to whether the hybrid Coblentz agreement/arbitration award wasreasonable and made in good faith, or the productofalleged impropercollusion and they are being ordered produced. Som e of these em ailsconstitutefactwork product,som e constitute opinion work product, and some contain both opinion and factwork product.In allcases,the Courthasapplied the applicable law cited in this Orderto its decision as to whether or not to order production.Upon review and analysis, the Courtwillrequire the production ofonly those em ails specifed below by Bates number. The Courtreiterates that itis only ordering produced those emails which are directly relevantto the issues ofbad faith, reasonableness,or alleged collusion.Therefore,m any of the em ails are notbeing ordered produced;rather, only those directly relevant em ails are being produced. Defendant's M otion to Com pel Better Responses as to Defendant's Request for Production 2 is GRANTED in partasfollows.PlaintiffisO RDERED to produce to Defendant, within 10 days of the date of this Order, the following em ails, designated by theirrespectiveBatesnumbers: Kehle 006908-6909 K ehle 006922 Kehle 007012-7013 Kehle 007022-7023 Kehle 007040-7043 Kehle 007044-7047 K ehle 007052-7054 Kehle 007905 K ehle 007908-7909 K ehle 007910-7911 K ehle 007912 Kehle 008068-8070 K ehle 008101 K ehle 008129-8139 K ehle 008188-8196 Kehle 008323-8326 Kehle 008338-8340 K ehle 008351 Kehle 008639-8640 Kehle 008814-8820 Kehle 008821-8822 Kehle 008824-8825 Kehle 008939 K ehle 008961-8962 Kehle 009014-9015 K ehle 010462 K ehle 010582-010583 as Defendant'sM otion to CompelBetterResponses to lnterrogatories 18, 19,and 22 is GRANTED.Plaintiff shall,within 10 days ofthe date ofthis Order, provide better answers to those interrogatories as they are directly relevant to the good faith and reasonableness of the hybrid Coblentz agreem ent/arbitration award, including the dismissal of M unson, alleged collusion, the facts and circum stances underlying Henderson and M unson's alleged liability, the agreem entto proceed to arbitration beforeasinglearbitrator,and the selection ofthe arbitrator. 3. Defendant's M otion to Compel Better Responses to Interrogatory 17 is DENIED withoutprejudice atthis time.The Courthas concems regarding the overbroad wording of Intenogatory 17,and therefore willnotorderPlaintiffto respond to this Interrogatory.lnterrogatory 17 requests that Plaintiff explain the reasons Plaintiff am ended paragraph 15 ofthe complaintin the underlying action. The requestforthe tsreasons and/or circum stances'' for the am endm ent of paragraph 15 and ttany discussions and/or communications relating to the revision of paragraph 15'' is overbroad,vague in certain respects, and unduly invasive.Therefore,Plaintiffshall notbe required to respond to Intenogatory 17. DONE AND ORDERED in C am bersatW estPalm Beach, Palm Beach County,in the SouthernDistrictofFlorida,this3OdayofMay, 2018. W ILLIAM M A TTHE M AN U N ITED STA TES A G ISTM TE JU D GE 18

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.