Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01401/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-01401-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332in Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1

15cv1401-BEN-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT 

DISTRICT,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL UNION FIRE 

INSURANCE COMPANY OF 

PITTSBURG, PA,

Defendant.

Case No.: 15cv1401-BEN-MDD

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION 

FOR DETERMINATION OF 

DISCOVERY DISPUTE

[ECF NO. 36]

Before this Court is the parties’ Joint Motion for Determination of 

Discovery Dispute filed on May 5, 2017. (ECF No. 36). The dispute is over 

the extent to which Defendant is entitled to discovery regarding Plaintiff’s 

claim for “Brandt fees” as damages, and the timing of such discovery. 

“Brandt fees” are attorneys’ fees incurred by a plaintiff to obtain the contract 

benefits under an insurance policy which are recoverable as economic 

damages resulting from the breach of the good faith covenant. Brandt v. 

Super. Ct., 37 Cal. 3d 813, 817 (1985). Attorneys’ fees expended to recover 

other types of damages are not recoverable as Brandt fees, so the attorneys’ 

fees incurred by a plaintiff in a bad faith action must be allocated between

Case 3:15-cv-01401-BEN-MDD Document 44 Filed 06/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

15cv1401-BEN-MDD

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

recoverable fees incurred to obtain contract damages and non-recoverable 

fees incurred to obtain tort damages. Id. 

Defendant seeks to compel Plaintiff to produce unredacted copies of 

time records, billing invoices, and the attorney-client fee agreement. 

Defendant further seeks to compel Plaintiff to make Rule 26(a) disclosures 

concerning Brandt fee information. 

Plaintiff asserts attorney-client privilege and attorney work product 

objections. Plaintiff explains that its Brandt fees are continuing to accrue 

and claims that revealing these documents in this “active and ongoing 

litigation” would prejudicially reveal Plaintiff’s ongoing litigation strategy to 

its adversary. Plaintiff offers to produce time records redacted to exclude 

descriptions of time spent that is not claimed as Brandt fee damages. 

Defendant contends that Plaintiff waived any privilege applying to 

these documents by claiming Brandt fees in this action. Defendant asserts 

that “the Port must produce un-redacted billing entries for any time that the 

Port wishes to recover as damages. To the extent that the Port determines 

that a particular time entry is not recoverable because it was not time spent 

trying to recover contract damages, only then is redaction appropriate.” (ECF

No. 36 at 8:23-9:2 (emphasis in original)). 

Defendant is correct that “[b]y seeking to recover the fees expended in 

this litigation, Plaintiffs have waived the privileges that might have covered 

the information.” Mancini v. Ins. Corp. of N.Y., Case No. 07cv1750-L-NLS, 

2009 WL 1765295 at *4 (S.D. Cal. June 18, 2009) (citing Luna v. Sears Life 

Ins. Co., Case No. 06cv2653-DMS-CAB, 2008 WL 2484596 at *1 (S.D. Cal. 

Jan. 11, 2008)); see also Foremost Ins. Co. Grand Rapids, Mich. v. Enriquez, 

Case No. 13cv1604-H-DHB, 2015 WL 11578510 at *3 (S.D. Cal. March 26, 

2015) (requiring production of redacted copies of the attorney-client fee 

Case 3:15-cv-01401-BEN-MDD Document 44 Filed 06/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

15cv1401-BEN-MDD

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

agreement and redacted copies of invoices in addition to the summary of fees 

and evidence of payments already produced); Fidelity Nat’l Fin. Mgmt. v. 

Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co., Case No. 09cv140-AJB-CAB, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

48697, *3 (S.D. Cal. May 5, 2011) (finding plaintiff waived privilege claim to 

attorneys’ fees information by claiming Brandt fees). 

Plaintiff’s reliance on Lennare Mare Island, LLC v. Steadfast Ins. Co., 

Case No. 12cv2182-KJM-KJN, 2015 WL 1540631 (E.D. Cal. April 7, 2015)

and Fidelity, supra, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48697, *3, is misplaced. 

Plaintiff cites Lennare for its holding that 

...at least some of the material [defendant] seeks to compel, in 

particular, information concerning [plaintiff’s] legal bills, may 

relate to [plaintiff’s] litigation strategy, such as descriptions of 

the legal services for which the Navy may be paying. Because 

of this fact, the court finds that production of such 

information is inappropriate at this pre-trial juncture. 

Lennare, 2015 WL 1540631 at *6. Although this holding appears at first 

blush to be directly on point, the underlying circumstances were so different 

that the cited language has no relevance to the instant dispute. In Lennare, 

the defendant was not seeking billing records, invoices, attorney-client fee 

agreements and Rule 26 disclosures showing the amount, description and 

calculation of Brandt fees. Instead, the Lennare defendant was seeking 

testimony about reimbursement payments made to plaintiff by third parties 

for incurring Brandt fees to obtain insurance contract damages for a 

decontamination project. Lennare, 2015 WL 1540631 at *1; and see Case No. 

2:12cv2182-KJM-KJN, ECF Nos. 255-2, 255-6, 263, 425). Consequently, the 

cited language from Lennare is not persuasive in the context of the instant 

dispute. 

Case 3:15-cv-01401-BEN-MDD Document 44 Filed 06/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

15cv1401-BEN-MDD

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

Regarding the Fidelity case, Plaintiff argues that it stands for the 

proposition that Brandt does not require immediate disclosure and that 

Plaintiff can wait until some unspecified time before trial to produce the 

requested information. (ECF No. 36-2 at 4). Plaintiff is correct that thenMagistrate Judge Bencivengo only required production of the requested 

information by the close of discovery. But, at the time of the Order in 

Fidelity, only 15 days remained before the close of discovery. More 

significantly, Judge Bencivengo found the Plaintiff had waived any privilege 

by claiming Brandt fees, rejected Plaintiff’s request to delay production, and 

warned that Plaintiff should produce the documents before the discovery 

period closed—just two weeks from the issuance of the order. Fidelity, 2011 

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48697 at *3. This Court does not interpret Judge 

Bencivengo’s order as permitting plaintiffs claiming Brandt fees to wait until 

the close of discovery to produce their evidence, but instead reads the opinion 

as suggesting that delayed production of Brandt fees evidence could lead to 

sanctions.

It appears that all of the magistrate judges in this District who have 

considered this issue have found that the plaintiff waived any applicable 

privileges by claiming Brandt fees, and ordered production forthwith. 

Plaintiff has not convinced this Court to take a different path. Consequently, 

Plaintiff must produce the time sheets, billing invoices, and fee agreement(s). 

Defendant concedes, however, that Plaintiff may redact information for time 

entries as to which Plaintiff does not seek to recover as damages. 

Similarly, Plaintiff’s assertion of privilege does not shield it from 

making Rule 26(a) disclosures concerning Brandt fees. Rule 26(a) requires a 

party seeking damages to provide a copy or description of documents the 

party may use to support its claims, provide a computation of damages, and 

Case 3:15-cv-01401-BEN-MDD Document 44 Filed 06/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

15cv1401-BEN-MDD

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

make documents supporting its claimed damages available for inspection and 

copying. FED. R. CIV. P. 26(a). By asserting a claim for Brandt fees, Plaintiff 

has waived any privileges that would prevent disclosure of the documents 

supporting the damages Plaintiff seeks. R&R Sails, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of Penn., 

673 F.3d 1240, 1247 (9th Cir. 2012) (finding district court did not abuse its 

discretion in concluding that party failed to timely make Rule 26(a) 

disclosures in support of Brandt fees demand, but reversing sanctions award 

for failure to consider whether failure was willful)). Plaintiff must comply 

with Rule 26(a) with respect to its claim for Brandt fees. 

The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to compel discovery. Plaintiff 

is ORDERED to produce time sheets, billing invoices, and the relevant fee 

agreement(s). Plaintiff may redact billing entries or other parts of these 

documents that are irrelevant to Plaintiff’s claim for damages, including 

billing entries for time that the Plaintiff does not seek to recover as contract 

damages. Plaintiff is ORDERED to not redact the billing entries for any 

time that Plaintiff wishes to recover as damages. Further, Plaintiff is 

ORDERED to make its Rule 26(a) Brandt fee disclosures forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 7, 2017

Case 3:15-cv-01401-BEN-MDD Document 44 Filed 06/07/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5