Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01405/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01405-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgment

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Inc., 

an Illinois corporation, 

Plaintiff and Counterdefendant, 

vs. 

The Roman Catholic Church of the Diocese 

of Phoenix, a corporation sole, by and 

through Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted, his 

predecessors and successors, 

Defendants and Counterclaimants.

No. CV 09-01405-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Before the Court is Plaintiff Interstate Fire and Casualty Company’s (“Interstate 

Fire”) Motion to Compel Production of Witness Interviews and Timelines (Doc. 115). 

Interstate Fire requests production of informal discovery taken by Defendant (“the 

Diocese”) in defending the underlying Takata and Cesolini cases, including summaries of 

twenty-five witness interviews and two timelines. Interstate Fire claims these documents 

are discoverable because they are relevant to the Diocese’s knowledge of whether 

offending priests would abuse other minors, which, as this Court held in its February 8, 

2011 order (Doc. 58), is a central issue to this litigation and to determining whether the 

Diocese’s claims are covered by Interstate Fire’s policy. Interstate Fire requests the 

factual portions of the interview summaries, and is amenable to the documents being 

redacted for counsel’s strategy, theories, and assessments. The Diocese objects to the 

production of the requested documents on the basis that they are protected as work 

Case 2:09-cv-01405-NVW Document 129 Filed 01/19/12 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

product. 

Interstate Fire claims it is entitled to production of the witness interview 

summaries and timelines under four theories. First, Interstate Fire argues that it has a 

contractual right under the insurance policy to examine the Diocese’s “books or records 

so far as they relate to coverage.” (Doc. 115 at 2.) Second, Interstate Fire claims that 

even if the requested discovery constitutes work product, Interstate Fire and the Diocese 

share the “common interest” of defeating, settling, or minimizing the claims in the 

underlying litigation, and are accordingly entitled to access the interview summaries and 

timelines. Third, Interstate Fire claims that it is entitled to the requested discovery 

because the Diocese’s claim for indemnification for its attorney’s fees puts its services 

for such fees “at issue,” thus overcoming the work product protection. Finally, Plaintiff 

claims that it has shown a substantial need for the interview summaries under Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 26(b)(3) because of the witnesses’ unavailability, uncooperativeness, and their 

faded recollection of the events. 

The first three theories proffered by Interstate Fire do not entitle it to the requested 

discovery. The provision in the insurance contract for the review of books and records 

does not overcome the work product protection in this instance; the requested materials 

do not fall clearly within the scope of the Diocese’s “books and records” such that the 

Diocese could be said to have waived the work product protection by signing the 

insurance contract. Further, because the materials are not being requested in the course 

of any duty to defend the Diocese against the underlying claims, the “common interest” 

doctrine does not provide a basis for compelling the requested discovery. Finally, the 

Diocese’s request for attorney’s fees has not put its services “at issue” so as to defeat the 

work product protection. 

However, the Court finds that Interstate Fire is entitled to the requested discovery 

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A)(ii) provides that otherwise 

protected documents may be discoverable where the party seeking to compel production 

“shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, 

Case 2:09-cv-01405-NVW Document 129 Filed 01/19/12 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.” Interstate 

Fire claims that the subjects of the interviews have been non-responsive to contact, are 

difficult to locate, would be “inherently hostile” due to the nature of the underlying 

claims, and would accordingly be unwilling to provide the same information that was 

given in their earlier interviews. Further, Interstate Fire notes that the witnesses’ 

memories were likely better at the time the interviews were conducted, approximately 

five years ago, than their memories would be now. The Court agrees. Many of the 

witnesses, due to potential self-incrimination, imprisonment for the crimes at issue, and 

the sensitive nature of the claims at issue, would likely be hostile to Interstate Fire and 

thus uncooperative, as indicated by the lack of response to Interstate Fire’s attempt to 

contact Fr. Giandelone and other witnesses related to the Cesolini matter. This hostility, 

coupled with the passage of time since the interviews were conducted, is sufficient to 

warrant compelling the requested discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Accordingly, 

the Court will grant Interstate Fire’s motion (Doc. 115) and order the Diocese to produce 

the requested documents. In order to ensure that the documents are sufficiently redacted 

to protect the Diocese’s work product, the Diocese shall submit the documents to the 

Court for review with their proposed redactions. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production of 

Witness Interviews and Timelines (Doc. 115) is granted. Defendant shall produce the 

witness interview summaries and timelines, with Defendant’s proposed redactions, to the 

Court by February 8, 2012. 

Dated this 19th day of January, 2012. 

Case 2:09-cv-01405-NVW Document 129 Filed 01/19/12 Page 3 of 3