BROADCASTS.com

b'

Routine Business Not Protected Work Product\\n\\nIn Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc. v. Global Aerospace, Inc., et al., No. 2:17-cv-01515-KJM-AC,\\n United States District Court, E.D. California (October 25, 2023) an \\ninsurance coverage dispute wastes the time of the court and are \\nadmonished by the court.\\n\\nFACTUAL BACKGROUND\\n\\nIn a long-running insurance coverage dispute that was prolonged for \\nseveral years by defendant Global Aerospace Inc.\'s refusals to produce \\nevidence in response to requests from plaintiff Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc.\\n The root of the disagreement was Global\'s assertion of attorney-client \\nprivilege and work-product protections.\\n\\nThe Magistrate Judge determined the disputed evidence was not protected \\nby the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, and the court\\n denied Global\'s repeated requests to revisit that decision. In short, \\nalthough attorneys were involved in the disputed investigation, \\ncommunications with them were not privileged, and their work product was\\n not protected; the investigation was part of the company\'s routine \\nbusiness. It was not conducted in anticipation of litigation.\\n\\nSeveral defendants, including Global, have now moved for summary \\njudgment. Briefing is ongoing. The exhibits are excerpts of transcripts \\nfrom two depositions marked \\u201cconfidential\\u201d under the terms of a \\ndiscovery protective order. The witnesses were Katherine Posner and \\nWendy Grossman, two attorneys at the center of the dispute about \\nprivilege and work product. The defendants argued the transcripts are \\n\\u201csensitive\\u201d and must be sealed because they \\u201cwould ordinarily be \\nprotected by the attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine.\\u201d\\n\\nThe courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy\\n public records and documents, including judicial records and documents.\\n Although that right is not absolute, a strong presumption in favor of \\naccess is the starting point. This presumption is based on the need for \\nfederal courts, although independent-indeed, particularly because they \\nare independent-to have a measure of accountability and for the public \\nto have confidence in the administration of justice.\\n\\nWhen documents are filed with motions more than tangentially related to \\nthe merits of a case, such as alongside a motion for summary judgment, a\\n party who asks to keep them secret must meet the high threshold of \\nshowing that compelling reasons that support that request. This standard\\n applies even if the documents have previously been filed under seal or \\nare covered by a generalized protective order, including a \\ndiscovery-phase only protective order.\\n\\nOnce confidential discovery documents are made part of a dispositive \\nmotion they lose their status of being raw fruits of discovery. They no \\nlonger enjoy protected status without some overriding interest \\n\\nDOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL