Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02179/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02179-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.: Civil Enforcement of Employee Benefits

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEOFFREY MOYLE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 10cv2179-DMS (MDD)

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION

FOR DETERMINATION OF

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

REGARDING PRIVILEGE

[ECF NO. 143]

vs.

LIBERTY MUTUAL RETIREMENT

BENEFIT PLAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court is the joint motion of the parties for a determination of a

discovery dispute. The motion was filed on August 28, 2012. (ECF No. 143). 

Pursuant to discovery requests, Defendants withheld certain documents and

communications either as privileged attorney-client communications or as attorney

work product. Plaintiffs challenge the withholding of these materials asserting that

neither the attorney-client privilege nor attorney work product protection applies to

these materials because of the fiduciary exception. Plaintiffs also assert that the

privilege logs are deficient. (Id.).

 Background

This case arises from Plaintiff Moyle’s former employment with Golden Eagle

Insurance Company and later with Liberty Mutual Insurance, which acquired Golden

Eagle in 1997. Plaintiff was employed by Golden Eagle in 1988 and was discharged

- 1 - 10cv2179 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02179-GPC-MDD Document 160 Filed 09/27/12 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 7
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

by Liberty Mutual in 2002. In this lawsuit, among other things, Plaintiff asserts that

he was misled regarding the extent to which his service at Golden Eagle would be

attributed to Liberty Mutual and has sued for improperly withheld benefits. 

Litigation History

There is a lengthy history of litigation between these parties which bears

recounting. Plaintiff Moyle first sued Golden Eagle and Liberty Mutual for wrongful

termination in the Superior Court for the State of California. That case was removed

by the defendants to this court in December 2002. (Case No. 02cv2468). In January

2003, Plaintiff dismissed the action. Plaintiff sued these defendants again in

February 2003 in the Superior Court of the State of California alleging, among other

things, that his pension benefits improperly were denied. That case was removed to

this Court in March 2003. (Case No. 03cv509). The district court determined that

Plaintiff’s claims for benefits were pre-empted by ERISA and, since they were not

properly pled, dismissed those claims with leave to amend. When Plaintiff opted not

to amend his complaint, the district court remanded the case back to state court. (Id.

at ECF Nos. 23, 25). In March 2005, Plaintiff sued these defendants in this court

alleging ERISA violations. (Case No. 05cv507). The district court dismissed the

complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim because Plaintiff had not

exhausted his administrative remedies. (Id. at ECF No. 32). The dismissal was

upheld by the Ninth Circuit. (Id. at ECF No. 45).

Administrative Proceedings

Case No. 05cv507 was closed in November 2007. On January 26, 2008,

Plaintiff Moyle presented his claim for benefits to the Liberty Mutual Retirement

Benefit Plan. (ECF No. 143 at 2). Other identified Plaintiffs in this case joined in

the claim. (Id.). The claims initially were denied on April 28, 2008. (Id.). In the

denial letter, Plaintiff was invited to seek administrative review of the decision. (Id.).

On June 20, 2008, Plaintiff sought review of the decision denying his claim for

benefits. His claim was finally denied on October 23, 2009. (Id. at 3). 

- 2 - 10cv2179 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02179-GPC-MDD Document 160 Filed 09/27/12 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 7
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

This lawsuit followed on October 19, 2010. 

The Instant Discovery Dispute

Hewitt Associates, LLC (“Hewitt”) is the record-keeper for the Liberty Mutual

Retirement Benefit Plan. (ECF No. 143-3 at 2). Conrad Group International

(“Conrad”) is a human resources consulting firm hired by Defendants to conduct

interviews and prepare affidavits for individuals believed to have knowledge of

meetings held with Golden Eagle employees regarding the purchase of certain Golden

Eagle assets by Libery Mutual. (Id.). 

Subpoenas with document requests were served upon Hewitt and Conrad by

Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 143 Exhs. A, B). Due to the relationship between these entities

and Defendants, Defendants conducted a privilege review of documents collected by

these entities for production pursuant to Plaintiffs’ subpoenas. (ECF No. 143-3 at 2).

From the documents collected by Hewitt, Defendants report that 283,743 pages of

documents have been produced to Plaintiffs. (Id.) Withheld and challenged by

Plaintiffs are approximately 358 pages of documents from Hewitt consisting

primarily of a thread of ten electronic mails and attachments. 

Regarding Conrad, approximately 92 pages of documents have been produced

to Plaintiffs. (Id. at 3). Eight pages have been withheld and are challenged by

Plaintiffs. 

Plaintiffs challenge first the adequacy of the privilege log and, more

significantly, challenge any assertion of privilege by Defendants due to the fiduciary

exception to the attorney-client privilege. All of the challenged documents have been

submitted to the Court and reviewed in camera. 

Discussion

The Privilege and the Fiduciary Exception

The Ninth Circuit consistently has described the attorney-client privilege as

protecting communications: (a) where legal advice of any kind is sought; (b) from a

professional legal advisor in his capacity as such; (c) relating to that purpose; (d)

- 3 - 10cv2179 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02179-GPC-MDD Document 160 Filed 09/27/12 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 7
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

made in confidence; (e) by the client; (f) that are at the client’s insistence

permanently protected; (g) from disclosure by himself or the legal advisor; (h) unless

the protection be waived. United States v. Ruehle, 583 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2009);

United States v. Martin, 278 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2002). The party asserting the

privilege has the burden of establishing all of its elements and, even if established,

the privilege is strictly construed. Id. at 999-1000.

The protection of attorney work-product is codified at Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3). 

The work-product doctrine, which may be waived, protects from discovery “documents

and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation . . . by or for

another party or its representative.” Id. See also United States v. Richey, 632 F.3d

559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2011). Even if protected by the work-product doctrine,

documents may be discovered if they are relevant and the requesting party “shows

that is has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without

undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.” Fed.R.Civ.P.

26(b)(3)(A)(ii). 

The Ninth Circuit is among those that have recognized a “fiduciary exception”

to the attorney-client privilege. See United States v. Mett, 178 F.3d 1058, 1062-63

(9th Cir. 1999). In the ERISA context, the fiduciary exception prevents an employer

acting as an ERISA fiduciary from asserting the privilege against plan beneficiaries

on matters of plan administration. Id. at 1063. After reviewing the case law, the

court of appeals concluded that plan administrators retain some ability to receive

confidential legal advice. The court of appeals stated:

Thus the case authorities mark out two ends of a spectrum. On the one

hand, where an ERISA trustee seeks an attorney’s advice on a matter of

plan administration and where the advice clearly does not implicate the

trustee in any personal capacity, the trustee cannot invoke the attorneyclient privilege against the plan beneficiaries. On the other hand, where

a plan fiduciary retains counsel in order to defend herself against the

plan beneficiaries . . . the attorney-client privilege remains intact.

Id. at 1064. 

Determining where on the spectrum a given scenario falls has proven tricky. 

- 4 - 10cv2179 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02179-GPC-MDD Document 160 Filed 09/27/12 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 7
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

For the most part, courts have examined the facts and the disputed documents to

determine whether the interests of the fiduciary and the plan beneficiary had

diverged sufficiently at the time the legal advice was sought. If so, the privilege

survives. See Klein v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 806 F.Supp.2d 1120, 1131-32

(S.D.Cal 20110; Allen v. Honeywell Retirement Earnings Plan, 698 F.Supp.2d 1197,

1201 (D.Ariz. 2010). Courts regularly have rejected the notion that because denial of

a claim likely, or even inevitably, will result in litigation, that legal advice rendered

in advance of a claim denial remains subject to the privilege. See Stephan v. Unum

Life Ins. Co., ___ F.3d ____, 2012 WL 3983767, *13 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 2012). 

Specifically, the court of appeals stated:

Most courts have held that it is not until after the final determination –

that is, after the final administrative appeal – that the interests of the

Plan fiduciary and the beneficiary diverge for purposes of the fiduciary

exception. . . . . We agree with the weight of authority. 

Id. (citation to Klein, supra, omitted).

To the extent that documents are not privileged because of the application of

the fiduciary exception, work-product protection also fails because the documents

would not have been created in anticipation of litigation. Neathery v. Chevron Texaco

Group Accident Policy, 2006 WL 4690828 *2 (S.D.Cal. July 11, 2006). 

The Hewitt Documents

Documents identified as Hewitt Priv. Nos. 1 - 322 were created in 2005. At

that time, Plaintiff did not have an administrative claim pending. Rather, the

matter was in active litigation. The interests of the fiduciary and beneficiary could

not have been more divergent. The fiduciary was entitled to obtain confidential legal

advice and the work-product of fiduciary’s attorneys and their consultants are

entitled to protection from discovery. The Court finds that the Defendants are

entitled to assert attorney-client privilege and work-product protection for these

documents. 

Plaintiffs contend that the privilege log prepared by Defendants is deficient. 

The Court disagrees. Plaintiffs, on the other hand, have not identified specific

- 5 - 10cv2179 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02179-GPC-MDD Document 160 Filed 09/27/12 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 7
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

documents that they believe improperly are withheld. The Court has reviewed all of

the withheld documents from 2005 and finds as follows:

1. The documents identified as Hewitt Priv. Nos. 10-13, 23-47, 53-77, 83-

92, 93-107 and 175-178 are transcripts of telephone calls between Plaintiff Moyle and

a claims representative. These documents are not privileged and are not workproduct. They are to be produced; and, 

2. The remaining documents from 2005 reflect requests for information

and responses that appear to have been initiated for the purposes of litigation. These

documents need not be disclosed.

Hewitt Priv. Nos. 323-358 cover the period beginning March 25, 2009 through

June 28, 2010. The Court finds that documents numbered Hewitt Priv. Nos. 323-355,

covering March 25, 2009 through April 9, 2009, are subject to the fiduciary exception

and must be disclosed. Plaintiffs’ administrative claim was pending review and there

is no discussion in these documents of litigation or the personal liability of the

fiduciary. The documents identified as Hewitt Priv. Nos. 356-358 properly have been

withheld. These documents were created after the administrative claim had been

finally denied and are clearly in anticipation of litigation. 

The Conrad Documents

The withheld Conrad documents cover the period December 8, 2008 through

December 30, 2008. During this period, the initial denial of Plaintiffs’ administrative

claim for benefits was under review by the Plan. This factor suggests that the

fiduciary exception applies and privilege cannot be asserted. The Court has reviewed

each document. Although the communications were between outside counsel for

Defendants and Conrad personnel, the communications in the documents do not

address litigation nor the personal liability of the fiduciary. Rather, the

communications relate to the preparation of affidavits. It appears from the

timeframe that the affidavits which are the subject of the communications were

intended for use in the administrative appeal process. Consequently, the Court finds

- 6 - 10cv2179 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02179-GPC-MDD Document 160 Filed 09/27/12 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 7
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

that the fiduciary exception applies to these documents and they must be produced. 

Conclusion

As provided above, the documents identified as Hewitt Priv. Nos. 10-13, 23-47,

53-77, 83-92, 93-107, 175-178 and 323-355 are to be produced to Plaintiffs. The

documents identified as Conrad Priv. Nos. 1-8 also are to be produced. Absent

further order of the Court or agreement of the parties, production must occur no later

than October 12, 2012.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 27, 2012

 

 Hon. Mitchell D. Dembin

 U.S. Magistrate Judge

- 7 - 10cv2179 DMS (MDD)

Case 3:10-cv-02179-GPC-MDD Document 160 Filed 09/27/12 PageID.<pageID> Page 7 of 7