Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00870/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-00870-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
EaglePicher Management Company
Counter Defendant
Federal Insurance Company
Defendant
Zurich American Insurance Company
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

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

EAGLEPICHER MANAGEMENT

COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v.

FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

et al.

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-870-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently before the Court is Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’s March 5, 2008

Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #123) addressing certain discovery disputes between

Plaintiff EaglePicher Management Company (“EPMC”) and Defendant Zurich American

Insurance Company (“Zurich”), as well as Zurich’s February 7, 2008 motion to amend the

Court’s case management order (Dkt. #107). 

Magistrate Judge Voss’s Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court

order the following: (1) EPMC must answer Zurich’s expert interrogatory number nine

regarding the field of expertise of EaglePicher’s expert, Michael Rodman, because it is an

elementary and important interrogatory; (2) EPMC must produce all communications

provided to the Court for an in-camera inspection between EaglePicher, Inc. (EPMC’s

assignor) and Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”) with respect to the settlement

between EPI and Federal, because those communications are relevant with respect to a

Case 2:04-cv-00870-MHM Document 127 Filed 04/15/08 Page 1 of 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 - 2 -

potential overlapping of recovery regarding the Federal and Zurich policies, and the

potentially admissible evidence is the facts asserted by EPI in support of its effort to settle

with Federal; (3) EPMC must produce all communications provided to the court for incamera inspection between EaglePicher, Inc. and Aon Risk Services of Ohio, Inc.

(“Aon”), because there is no indication that Aon was hired “specially” to help EPMC

prepare for litigation or to provide an independent, non-testifying expert opinion, and as

such the material is not protected under FRCP 26(b)(4)(B) or as work product under FRCP

26(b)(3); (4) EPMC must provide the documents designated “Disclosure” in Exhibit A of

the Report and Recommendation, because although EPMC’s privilege log is credible, the

Court has reviewed the documents in camera and finds that some of them are not

privileged; and (5) Zurich’s motion to amend the Court’s case management order is denied

without prejudice, because Zurich’s motion does not satisfy the good cause requirement

for extending the discovery deadline in this case. (Dkt. #123).

A district court “must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations

de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d

1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed

findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”). “Failure to object to a

magistrate judge's recommendation waives all objections to the judge's findings of fact.” 

Jones v. Wood, 207 F.3d 557, 562 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000).

Despite leave to do so as expressly stated in Magistrate Judge Voss’s Report and

Recommendation, the parties did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). (Dkt. #123, pp. 8-9). As such, the parties have waived

all objections to Magistrate Judge Voss’s Report and Recommendation. After reviewing

the Report and Recommendation in light of the record and the parties’ pleadings, including

EPMC’s March 4, 2008 notice of supplemental authority regarding one of the parties’

discovery disputes (Dkt. #122), the Court finds itself in complete agreement with the

Case 2:04-cv-00870-MHM Document 127 Filed 04/15/08 Page 2 of 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 - 3 -

Report and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge Voss thoroughly and properly addressed

the parties’ discovery disputes and Zurich’s motion to amend the Court’s case

management order. As such, the Court will adopt in full Magistrate Judge Voss’s Report

and Recommendation.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss’s Report and

Recommendation (Dkt. #123) is adopted in full as the order of the Court. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that EaglePicher Management Company (“EPMC”)

must answer Defendant Zurich American Insurance Company’s (“Zurich”) Expert

Interrogatory #9 regarding EPMC’s expert Michael Rodman’s field of expertise.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that EPMC must produce all communications

provided to the Court for an in-camera inspection between EaglePicher, Inc. and Federal

Insurance Company to Zurich.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that EPMC must produce all communications

provided to the Court for in-camera inspection between EaglePicher, Inc. and Aon Risk

Services of Ohio, Inc. to Zurich.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that EPMC must provide Zurich with the

documents designated “Disclosure” in Exhibit A of the Report and Recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Zurich’s motion to amend the Court’s case

management order (Dkt. #107) is DENIED without prejudice.

DATED this 14th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:04-cv-00870-MHM Document 127 Filed 04/15/08 Page 3 of 3