Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02312/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-02312-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nalini Kumar
Plaintiff
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company
Defendant
Allen Singh
Plaintiff

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NALINI KUMAR, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE 

COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 22-cv-03852-TLT (LJC)

ORDER REGARDING JOINT 

DISCOVERY LETTER

Re: ECF No. 28

Before the Court is the parties’ Joint Discovery Letter. ECF No. 28. The parties dispute 

the sufficiency of Defendant Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company’s (Nationwide) privilege 

logs and the discoverability of several types of documents Nationwide is withholding based on, 

inter alia, attorney-client privilege and attorney work product protection. Id. On March 28, 2023, 

the Court ordered the parties to submit additional briefing and ordered Nationwide to file its most 

recent privilege logs for the Court’s review. ECF No. 33. Nationwide filed its letter brief and its 

amended and supplemental privilege logs on March 31, 2023 (ECF No. 36) and Plaintiffs Nalini 

Kumar and Allen Singh (Kumars) filed their letter brief on April 5, 2023. ECF No. 37. The Court 

held a hearing on April 6, 2023. ECF No. 38. Having read the parties’ submissions and carefully 

considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and for the reasons explained below, 

the Court orders Nationwide to revise its privilege logs as to some categories of documents, but 

otherwise rejects Plaintiffs’ main challenge to Nationwide’s claim of attorney-client privilege over 

communications with its outside counsel, Julian Pardini. 

I. BACKGROUND

The Kumars had a house fire on July 4, 2020, and promptly submitted a claim to their 

insurer, Nationwide. Complaint (Compl.) ¶ 14, ECF No. 1. Nationwide assigned employee 

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 05/23/23 Page 1 of 15
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Shawn Dalton to investigate Plaintiffs’ claim. Id. ¶ 20. On July 24, 2020, Nationwide referred the 

claim to its Special Investigations Unit (SIU) for an investigation into potential insurance fraud. 

Declaration of Lindsay Lathrum in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment 

(Lathrum Decl., Mot. for Summ. J.), Ex. C, ECF No. 32-1. On October 28, 2020, Nationwide 

contacted Julian Pardini from Lewis, Brosbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP (LBSS) to retain him as 

outside counsel as to Plaintiffs’ insurance claim. Declaration of Lindsay Lathrum in Support of 

Defendant’s Letter Brief (Lathrum Decl., Letter Brief), ECF No. 36-1.

On December 31, 2020, Mr. Pardini sent a letter to the Kumars indicating that he had been 

retained by Nationwide to “assist it with its investigation and evaluation” of their claim and to 

“render legal advice.” Declaration of Dylan Schaffer in Support of Plaintiffs’ Letter Brief 

(Schaffer Decl.), Ex. B at 1, ECF No. 37-1. Mr. Pardini informed the Kumars that he would be 

conducting Examinations Under Oath (EUO) and instructed them to “direct all further 

communications concerning this matter” to him and his law firm. Id.

The Kumars retained counsel to assist them at the EUOs. Compl. ¶ 42. Allen Singh’s 

EUO began on February 25, 2021, via Zoom. Id. ¶ 46. It was terminated early, after Mr. Pardini 

and Mr. Dalton refused to appear on camera and Mr. Singh asked to record the EUO in its entirety. 

Id. ¶¶ 51-52. Nalini Kumar’s EUO was scheduled for that afternoon, but it did not occur. Id. ¶ 53.

On March 24, 2021, the Kumars filed a lawsuit against Nationwide in Marin County 

Superior Court. Declaration of Samuel D. Jubelier in Support of Defendant’s Motion for 

Summary Judgment (Jubelier Decl.), Ex. A, ECF No. 32-2. In their lawsuit, the Kumars alleged, 

inter alia, that Nationwide unlawfully refused to permit a recording of their EUOs. Id. 

Nationwide retained Dentons US LLP (Dentons) to represent it in the litigation. Id. Shortly after 

the Kumars filed their Marin County lawsuit, on April 14, 2021, Mr. Pardini wrote to them to deny 

their claim in its entirety, for noncooperation based on their failure to proceed with the EUOs or 

deliver documents requested by Nationwide. Schaffer Decl., Ex. H.

On June 10, 2021, the Kumars’ Marin County case was removed by Nationwide to this 

Court, and it was assigned to the Honorable Judge Thomas S. Hixon. Jubelier Decl., Ex. A. At a 

hearing on Nationwide’s motion to dismiss on December 16, 2021, Judge Hixon agreed with 

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 05/23/23 Page 2 of 15
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Nationwide that Plaintiffs did not have the right to insist on video recording its representatives at 

the EUO. Id., Ex. B at 22. Plaintiffs dismissed their case without prejudice that same day. Id. ¶ 4.

On December 28, 2021, Nationwide agreed to reinstate Plaintiffs’ claim. Compl. ¶ 70. 

However, on May 11, 2022, Plaintiff Nalini Kumar filed an entirely separate case against 

Nationwide in Alameda County Superior Court, seeking declaratory relief in state court as to 

whether she had a right to videorecord Nationwide’s representatives and counsel during her EUO. 

Lathrum Decl., Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. H at 15. Kumar ultimately obtained a ruling holding that 

she was entitled to record the EUO, and Nationwide has appealed the ruling. Def. Mot. for Summ. 

J. 4, n.13, ECF No. 32. 

Mr. Singh’s EUO proceeded on June 21, 2022. Compl. ¶ 77. Nationwide alleges that 

during the EUO, Mr. Singh and his counsel were uncooperative and refused to provide

Nationwide with any information. Def. Mot. for Summ. J. 5-8. Mr. Singh appeared the next 

morning (June 22, 2022) for his continued EUO, but Nationwide cancelled the EUO after a period 

of examination. Compl. ¶ 80. That same day, Nationwide also cancelled Ms. Kumar’s EUO, 

which was set to begin after Mr. Singh’s EUO was completed. Id. ¶ 81.

The Kumars filed this pending lawsuit against Nationwide on June 29, 2022. ECF No. 1. 

They brought causes of action for insurance bad faith, breach of contractual duty to pay a covered 

claim, negligent failure to obtain insurance coverage, and negligent misrepresentation. Id. 

Nationwide is once again being represented by Dentons. ECF No. 16. On September 1, 2022, Mr. 

Pardini sent Nationwide’s final denial letter to Plaintiffs. Schaffer Decl., Ex. K. On November 

21, 2022, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated protective order to address the production of 

confidential, proprietary, or private information. ECF No. 26. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding 

any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the 

needs of the case...” (emphasis added). A party that withholds otherwise discoverable material 

based on a privilege or the work product doctrine must “expressly make the claim...[and] describe 

the nature of the documents, communications, or tangible things not produced or disclosed—and

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 05/23/23 Page 3 of 15
4

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

Northern District of California

do so in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable 

other parties to assess the claim.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(i)-(ii). 

In diversity cases, a federal court must determine “the existence or extent” of a privilege 

under the state law that otherwise governs decision of the case. See Star Ed., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. 

for Cent. Dist. of Cal., 7 F.3d 856, 859 (9th Cir. 1993) (citing Federal Rule of Evidence 501). 

Under California law, the attorney-client privilege is governed by statute and applies to 

confidential communications between client and lawyer during the course of the attorney-client 

relationship. See Cal. Evid. Code §§ 911, 954, 952. The attorney-client privilege “does not apply 

to every single communication transmitted confidentially between lawyer and client. Rather the 

heartland of the privilege protects those communications that bear some relationship to the 

attorney’s provision of legal consultation.” Los Angeles Cnty Bd. of Supervisors v. Super. Ct., 2 

Cal. 5th 282, 294 (2016). 

“The party claiming the privilege has the burden of establishing the preliminary facts 

necessary to support its exercise.” Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Super. Ct., 47 Cal. 4th 725, 733 

(2009). “Once that party establishes facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of privilege,” 

then the privilege is presumed to apply, and “the opponent of the claim of privilege has the burden 

of proof to establish the communication was not confidential or that the privilege does not for 

other reasons apply.” Id.

The Ninth Circuit has previously described characteristics of a valid privilege log, which 

includes identification of “(a) the attorney and client involved, (b) the nature of the document, (c) 

all persons or entities shown on the document to have received or sent the document, (d) all 

persons or entities known to have been furnished the document or informed of its substance, and 

(e) the date the document was generated, prepared, or dated.” In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 

F.2d 1068, 1071 (9th Cir. 1992).

However, there is no “per se waiver rule that deems a privilege waived,” and the Court 

must “make a case-by-case determination” based on “the degree to which the objection or 

assertion of privilege enables the litigant seeking discovery and the court to evaluate whether each 

of the withheld documents is privileged...the timeliness of the objection and accompanying 

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 05/23/23 Page 4 of 15
5

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

Northern District of California

information about the withheld documents...the magnitude of the document production; and other 

particular circumstances of the litigation that make responding to discovery unusually easy...or 

unusually hard.” Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Dist. of Mont., 408 F.3d 

1142, 1149 (9th Cir. 2005). These factors are applied as part of a “holistic reasonableness 

analysis,” not as a “mechanistic determination of whether the information is provided in a 

particular format.” Id.

III. DISCUSSION

In the Joint Discovery Letter and their supplemental briefing, the parties have made 

various assertions and arguments regarding the discoverability of records that Nationwide has 

redacted or withheld on its privilege logs based on, inter alia, attorney-client privilege and 

attorney work product protection. ECF Nos. 28, 36, 37. The disputes that the parties most clearly 

articulate for the Court’s intervention fall into these general categories: whether the records 

involving Nationwide’s communications with Mr. Pardini, following his retention, are privileged;

and the sufficiency of Nationwide’s privilege logs, including a single entry through which 

Nationwide justifies its withholding of all records created after the filing of this Complaint. The 

Court will evaluate each category in turn.

A. Records of Nationwide’s Communications with Mr. Pardini

The parties’ key dispute is whether Nationwide’s communications with Mr. Pardini as to 

Plaintiffs’ claim are protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. 

Nationwide vigorously argues that its communications with Mr. Pardini are in fact privileged. 

Therefore, the Court will address this category of records first.

1. Attorney-Client Privilege

Plaintiffs claim that the attorney-client privilege does not apply to Nationwide’s 

communications with Mr. Pardini because the “dominant purpose” of his retention was to lead the 

claim investigation and act as a claims adjuster. ECF No. 37 at 2. That is, he was not acting as a 

lawyer when he was communicating with Plaintiffs. Id. They also go a step further and allege 

that Nationwide only retained Mr. Pardini to “hide” its claim process in bad faith and avoid 

discovery of its claims handling process. Id. In support of their claims, Plaintiffs submitted a 

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 05/23/23 Page 5 of 15
6

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

Northern District of California

declaration from their attorney, Dylan Schaffer, detailing Plaintiffs’ and their counsel’s 

interactions with Mr. Pardini. ECF No. 37-1. Nationwide argues that the “dominant purpose” of 

its relationship with Mr. Pardini was that of attorney-client, not claims adjuster-insurer. ECF No.

36 at 1-2. Nationwide submitted two declarations, one from Mr. Pardini, and another from 

Lindsay Lathrum, Claim Manager for Nationwide, who indicates that she “oversaw the activity of 

the assigned adjusters on the claim file” for Plaintiffs. Lathrum Decl., Letter Brief ¶ 3.

California law “confers a privilege on the client ‘to refuse to disclose, and to prevent 

another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer....’” Costco 

Wholesale Corp., 47 Cal. 4th at 732 (quoting Cal. Evid. Code § 954). The party asserting the 

privilege must prove that the attorney and client established a relationship, and that the “dominant 

purpose of the relationship” was that of attorney-client. Id. at 739-40 (emphasis added). “When 

an insurer hires an attorney both to provide a legal opinion and to serve as a claims adjuster, the 

court must make a determination of which purpose was primary.” McAdam v. State Nat. Ins. Co., 

15 F. Supp. 3d 1009, 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2014) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “The 

court takes the consideration of that question very seriously, particularly in light of the critical 

importance of claims files to the litigation of an insurance bad faith claim...” Umpqua Bank v. 

First Am. Title Ins. Co., No. CIV S-09-3208 WBS EF, 2011 WL 997212, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 

17, 2011). If the dominant or primary purpose of the relationship was not that of attorney-client, 

then the communications are “generally discoverable...” McAdam, 15 F. Supp. 3d at 1015.

It is not necessary for the Court to review each communication to determine its dominant 

purpose. See Costco Wholesale Corp., 47 Cal. 4th at 739.1 If “the communications were made 

1

In their Letter Brief, Plaintiffs claim that “[t]o justify its withholding, Nationwide must show 

each withheld or redacted document or diary entry involved a ‘confidential communication[s] 

between client and lawyer.’” ECF No. 37 (quoting Samantha B. v. Lexington Ins. Co., No. 

CV208895MWFJPRX, 2021 WL 8531694, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2021)). This is not an 

accurate characterization of the law. Samantha B. cited 2,022 Ranch v. Super. Ct., 113 Cal. App. 

4th 1377, 1399 (2003), which was disapproved of by Costco Wholesale Corp., 47 Cal. 4th at 739-

40. In Cotsco Wholesale Corp., the California Supreme Court held that the court in 2,022 Ranch

erred in ordering the trial court to review each communication to determine its dominant purpose. 

47 Cal. 4th at 739. Instead, the “proper procedure” was for the “trial court first to determine the 

dominant purpose of the relationship between the insurance company and its in-house attorneys.” 

Id. at 739-40.

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 05/23/23 Page 6 of 15
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

during the course of an attorney-client relationship, the communications, including any reports of 

factual material, would be privileged, even though the factual material might be discoverable by 

some other means. If the [Court] instead conclude[s] that the dominant purpose of the relationship 

was not that of attorney and client, the communications would not be subject to the attorney-client 

privilege and therefore would be generally discoverable.” Id. at 740.

Umpqua Bank, a bad faith insurance action similar to the instant matter, is instructive here. 

There, the court applied California law and held that the dominant purpose of the relationship 

between First American Title Insurance Company (First American) and its coverage counsel was 

that of attorney-client, not claims adjuster-insurance corporation. 2011 WL 997212, at *3. In 

doing so, the court relied on a declaration from First American’s in-house claims counsel, where 

she indicated that she was the claims adjuster assigned to the case; that she hired coverage counsel 

to provide a legal coverage opinion concerning the claims made by Umpqua Bank; that she 

authorized him to conduct any necessary factual investigation and to directly contact Umpqua 

Bank; that all their communications remained confidential; that coverage counsel was never an 

employee of First American; and finally, that she authorized him to issue a coverage letter to 

Umpqua Bank’s attorney only after he provided his legal opinions to First American. Id.

The facts here track very closely to the facts in Umpqua Bank. That is, Ms. Lathrum—

who oversaw Nationwide’s processing of Plaintiffs’ claim as Claim Manager—contacted Mr. 

Pardini to retain him as outside counsel so he could provide legal advice as to Nationwide’s 

coverage obligations. Lathrum Decl., Letter Brief ¶¶ 1, 4. This included undertaking a factual 

investigation and taking the Kumars’ EUOs. Id. ¶ 4. Nationwide kept communications with Mr. 

Pardini confidential and at no point was Mr. Pardini a Nationwide employee. Declaration of 

Julian Pardini in Support of Defendant’s Letter Brief (Pardini Decl.) ¶ 6, ECF No. 36-2. In 

addition, Nationwide made the decision to deny Plaintiffs’ claim in 2021 and 2022 after Mr. 

Pardini provided his legal advice, and Mr. Pardini sent the denial letters to Plaintiffs’ counsel only 

after this legal advice was provided to Nationwide. Lathrum Decl., Letter Brief ¶ 9; Pardini Decl. 

¶ 7. Finally, Nationwide continued to adjust and process Plaintiffs’ claim after Mr. Pardini was 

retained in October 2020, through normal claims handling employees who communicated directly 

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 05/23/23 Page 7 of 15
8

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

Northern District of California

with the Kumars. Lathrum Decl., Letter Brief ¶¶ 11, 13 and Ex. A.

Given all the above, Nationwide has quite clearly met its “burden of establishing the 

preliminary facts necessary to support a prima facie claim of attorney-client privilege” over its 

communications with Mr. Pardini. Umpqua Bank, 2011 WL 997212, at *4.

In response, Plaintiffs contend that Mr. Pardini repeatedly emphasized he was to be their 

primary point of contact. Schaffer Decl. ¶¶ 21-23, 32. But this was also the case in Umpqua 

Bank, where First American’s coverage counsel became the only point of contact for the insured, 

Umpqua Bank. 2011 WL 997212, at *3. The court there found this “suspicious,” along with the 

fact that First American’s coverage counsel sent the denial letter directly to Umpqua Bank’s 

counsel. Id. Here, Mr. Pardini sent Plaintiffs’ counsel both denial letters, provided Plaintiffs with 

claim documents, and responded to their demand for appraisal after Plaintiffs made those requests 

to their claims adjuster, Mr. Dalton, not to Mr. Pardini. Schaffer Decl. ¶¶ 22-23, 27, 37. Plaintiffs 

claim that these are tasks typically associated with a claims adjuster. 

This may be true. However, “the intermingling of roles does not relieve the Court of the 

requirement that it determine the dominant purpose of the relationship in order to decide whether 

the attorney-client privilege applies.” Ivy Hotel San Diego, LLC v. Houston Cas. Co., No. 

10CV2183-L BGS, 2011 WL 4914941, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2011) (citing Costco Wholesale 

Corp., 47 Cal. 4th at 739-40). In Cason v. Federated Life Ins. Co., No. C-10-0792 EMC, 2011 

WL 1807427 (N.D. Cal. May 11, 2011), a disability insurance bad faith action, the Court 

acknowledged that the attorney for the insurance company at times “performed what where 

arguably nonlegal tasks,” including serving as the point of contact and providing documents for 

review to medical examiners. Id. at *2. But it nevertheless held that these “few instances in the 

current record do not establish that the dominant purpose of the relationship” was that of claims 

adjuster-insurance corporation, and not attorney-client. Id.

The Court is particularly persuaded by Nationwide’s evidence that its personnel were 

continuing to adjust and process Plaintiffs’ claim even after Nationwide retained Mr. Pardini and 

at the same time Mr. Pardini was communicating with Plaintiffs’ counsel to provide documents 

and proceed with conducting the EUOs. Lathrum Decl., Letter Brief ¶¶ 11, 13-14 and Ex. A. For 

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 05/23/23 Page 8 of 15
9

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

Northern District of California

example, Nationwide provides claim diary notations from February 24 and 25, 2021 by 

Nationwide adjuster Mr. Dalton, who stated that “he received additional [Additional Living 

Expense] receipts from Ms. Kumar, that he issued payments based on them, and that he advised 

Ms. Kumar of the payments by email and letter.” Lathrum Decl., Letter Brief ¶ 13 and Ex. A. 

Ultimately, the record reflects that Mr. Pardini was primarily responsible for conducting a 

factual investigation into the Kumars’ claim and conducting their EUOs, which Nationwide 

indicates was for the purpose of providing legal advice regarding its coverage obligations under 

their insurance policy, while Nationwide claims-handling employees continued to communicate 

with the Kumars about insurance payouts and the status of their claim. Id. ¶¶ 4, 7, 13. 

Renovate America, Inc. v. Lloyd’s Syndicate 1458, No. 19-CV-1456-GPC(WVG), 2020 

WL 5106657, at *3-4 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2020), upon which Plaintiffs rely, is easily 

distinguishable. There, the court found that the attorney’s dominant purpose was that of a claims 

adjuster because she issued coverage payments directly to the plaintiff, “no one was more 

involved with the claims than she was,” and, importantly, the defendant insurance company made 

only “a scant and conclusory showing” in which it failed provide a declaration from the attorney 

whose communications were at issue. Id. Here, however, Nationwide has presented declarations

from Mr. Pardini and Ms. Lathrum, a Nationwide Claim Manager, who oversaw activity of the 

adjusters assigned to the Kumars’ claim and who contacted Mr. Pardini to retain him. 

Plaintiffs also argue that Mr. Pardini’s December 31, 2020 letter to the Kumars demanding 

documents “which included materials subject to privilege and privacy objections under the 

California constitution” demonstrate he was acting as a claims adjuster, because if Mr. Pardini was 

acting as a lawyer, “his conduct would run afoul of California Bar Rule of Professional Conduct 

4.3(b).”2 ECF No. 37 at 3. The letter Plaintiffs cite asks for records reflecting their right to the 

property, all investigative or police reports related to any property losses, names of insurance 

companies with whom they have made prior claims, all photographs of the subject property, 

2

“In communicating on behalf of a client with a person who is not represented by counsel, a 

lawyer shall not seek to obtain privileged or other confidential information the lawyer knows or 

reasonably should know the person may not reveal without violating a duty to another or which 

the lawyer is not otherwise entitled to receive.” Cal. Rule of Professional Conduct 4.3(b). 

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 05/23/23 Page 9 of 15
10

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

Northern District of California

estimates, bids, or appraisals to replace their property, etc. Schaffer Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. B at 5. 

Plaintiffs do not explain in what ways these document requests sought privileged information 

and/or information that infringe on their privacy rights. Given Mr. Pardini’s mandate from 

Nationwide to conduct a factual investigation with respect to their claim, it is not surprising that he 

was requesting such documents from the Kumars. And any leftover privacy concerns they may 

have over the information contained within these documents should be adequately addressed by 

the stipulated protective order already in place in this matter. See ECF No. 26.

Plaintiffs further argue that because Nationwide has never relied on any exclusion under 

the policy to disclaim coverage, then its contention that it hired Mr. Pardini to provide a coverage 

opinion is disingenuous. ECF No. 37 at 3; Schaffer Decl. ¶ 39. But Plaintiffs propose too narrow 

an interpretation for what constitutes legal advice under an attorney-client relationship. The 

absence of an asserted coverage exclusion in this litigation does not indicate that Nationwide was 

unjustified in retaining counsel to provide legal advice as to its coverage obligations pursuant to 

the Kumars’ policy. 

Finally, Plaintiffs make a similarly narrow, unpersuasive argument that Nationwide did not 

have an attorney-client relationship with Mr. Pardini because he has not served as its litigation 

counsel. ECF No. 37 at 3. Nationwide hired Dentons as litigation counsel for at least two of the 

three lawsuits related to this claim. Schaffer Decl. ¶¶ 26, 36. This does not foreclose Mr. Pardini 

acting as an attorney for Nationwide by gathering and analyzing claims-related facts and providing 

Nationwide with legal advice as to its coverage obligations. 

In sum, Plaintiffs have not provided any evidence to “establish the communication[s]

[between Nationwide and Mr. Pardini were] not confidential or that the privilege does not for 

other reasons apply.” Umpqua Bank, 2011 WL 997212, at *2.

2. Attorney Work Product Protection

Nationwide has withheld and redacted a number of documents based on the attorney work 

product doctrine. Plaintiffs, however, claim that there is a “compelling need” under Rule 26(b)(3) 

for documents, such that an exception to the work product doctrine applies. ECF No. 37 at 3. 

Plaintiffs contend that there is a compelling need because “the strategy, mental impressions, and 

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 05/23/23 Page 10 of 15
11

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

Northern District of California

opinions of [Nationwide] and its agents in the claim investigation are directly at issue” and those 

documents are in the sole possession of Nationwide. Id. 

In response, Nationwide argues that “all of Mr. Pardini’s strategy, mental impressions, or 

opinions regarding the Claim were contained in confidential communications to Nationwide.” 

ECF No. 36 at 2-3. Therefore, even “if work product protection does not apply, attorney-client 

privilege still does.” Id. Plaintiffs do not dispute this assertion by Nationwide, nor do they point 

to any documents on Nationwide’s privilege logs that are solely protected by the work product 

doctrine and not the attorney-client privilege.

Because the Court has found that the attorney-client privilege applies to communications 

between Nationwide and Mr. Pardini, and any finding by this Court regarding Nationwide’s work 

product claims will not result in Nationwide being required to produce additional documents, the 

Court will not make a ruling on this issue at this time. Plaintiffs are free to bring any future 

disputes regarding this issue to the Court’s attention, if they so choose.

B. Sufficiency of Nationwide’s Privilege Logs

Plaintiffs vigorously object to the sufficiency of Nationwide’s privilege logs and urge that 

Nationwide has partially forfeited attorney-client communications and work product privileges. 

ECF Nos. 28 at 2; 37 at 1-2. Plaintiffs object to entries on Nationwide’s privilege logs that show 

documents withheld and redacted before Mr. Pardini was retained in late October 2020. ECF No.

37 at 2. Some of these entries discuss “subrogation attorney” and “in-house counsel.” See, e.g., 

Schaffer Decl., Ex. N at 5 (NMIC-001147, Entry 26, dated August 5, 2020), 14 (NMIC-001402, 

Entry 65, dated October 16, 2020). Other entries indicate that the document is a communication 

with counsel but there is no attorney involved in the communication or identified in the 

description of the document. See, e.g., id., Ex. N at 15 (NMIC-001412, Entry 68, dated August 

11, 2020). 

In response, Nationwide argues that its “claim diary,” which is “an internal record of 

Nationwide’s claim handling activities,” includes instances where “Nationwide claim handling 

personnel documented the substance of their communications with outside counsel in the claim 

diary, or summarized their understanding of outside counsel’s strategy, impressions, and opinions 

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 05/23/23 Page 11 of 15
12

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

Northern District of California

as communicated to Nationwide.” ECF No. 36 at 3. However, Nationwide does not otherwise 

identify any attorneys (whether in-house or outside counsel) other than Mr. Pardini that were 

involved in processing Plaintiffs’ claim either before or after Mr. Pardini’s retention. 

Under California law, the lack of an attorney directly involved in the communication does 

not mean the communication is not protected by the attorney-client privilege, because “in order to 

implement the advice of lawyers, the advice must be communicated to others within the 

corporation.” Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct., 155 Cal. App. 4th 1485, 1498 (2007). 

Nevertheless, this does not relieve Nationwide of its obligation to provide enough information to 

Plaintiffs so that they may “evaluate whether each of the withheld documents is privileged.” 

Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 408 F.3d at 1149. 

Here, some of the documents withheld in full on Nationwide’s privilege logs from before 

Mr. Pardini was retained simply describe “communication with counsel” without identifying the 

specific attorney involved in the communication. See, e.g., Schaffer Decl., Ex. N at 87-88. This 

is conclusory and not enough to establish the existence of the privilege. See In re Telescopes 

Antitrust Litig., No. 20CV03639EJDVKD, 2022 WL 17331257, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2022) 

(“Suffice it to say that for each privilege claim, the privilege log should disclose the attorney and 

client involved in the communication.”) (citing In re Grand Jury Investigation, 974 F.2d at 1071). 

Plaintiffs argue that Nationwide has forfeited privilege and work product protection 

because it was alerted to these deficiencies. ECF No. 37 at 1-2. The record, however, does not set 

forth clear evidence of a refusal to correct the deficiencies. Plaintiff's briefing and the record do 

not establish a timeline that makes it evident that Nationwide unreasonably refused to correct the 

deficiencies. Plaintiffs have submitted email correspondence as evidence, but does not explain 

when the privilege log was originally served, when the parties met and conferred to discuss the 

deficiencies, and when Nationwide amended and supplemented its privilege log. Nor does the 

record permit the Court to compare the original deficient entries with subsequent versions. See

Schaffer Decl., Exs. N and O and ECF Nos. 36-3, 36-4. The Court has some concerns that 

Nationwide is engaging in obstructionist tactics, but without a clearer record, at this time, the 

Court is unwilling to find that Nationwide has waived important protections pursuant to the 

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 05/23/23 Page 12 of 15
13

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

Northern District of California

attorney-client communications privilege and work product doctrine. 

Nationwide must identify the attorney(s) involved in the claim diary and other privilege 

log entries documenting legal advice or work product where no attorney has been named as having 

provided that advice, so as to allow Plaintiffs to properly assess Nationwide’s privilege claims. 

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5). Nationwide’s insufficient entries must be supplemented through a 

revised privilege log or declarations, or some combination thereof, providing sufficient 

information for evaluation of whether the records are lawfully protected from disclosure. This 

supplementation must include information in addition to the names of the attorneys. The Court is 

cognizant of the fact that updating hundreds of privilege log entries could be unduly burdensome, 

and notes that “[t]he indication of the attorney-client relationship need not be set out in each 

privilege log entry but may be explained in a separate document...” In re Telescopes Antitrust 

Lit., 2022 WL 17331257, at *4; see also LD v. United Behav. Health, No. 20CV02254YGRJCS, 

2022 WL 4878726, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2022) (holding that “a party may also substantiate a 

claim of privilege” by means other than a privilege log, “including declarations that establish the 

purpose of the communication or the specific role of the sender and each individual recipient.”) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Nationwide should also be aware that the Court is highly skeptical of the withholding of 

records prior to the retention of Mr. Pardini, during the period in which the claim was reviewed by 

the SIU, because there is no factual record that the attorneys involved were for a dominant purpose 

other than investigating or adjusting the claim. See McAdam, 15 F. Supp. 3d at 1015. The Court 

is also highly skeptical of privilege log entries withholding of documents based on relevance. See 

Shenwick v. Twitter, Inc., No. 16-CV-05314-JST (SK), 2018 WL 833085, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 

2018) (“In general, courts frown upon the practice of redacting irrelevant information from 

documents based on one party’s unilateral assessment of relevance.”). If the parties continue to 

have disputes concerning the privilege logs, they shall follow the procedures for discovery 

disputes set forth in the undersigned’s Standing Order. 

C. Omnibus Privilege Log Entry

Finally, Plaintiffs object to Nationwide’s singular entry at the end of its amended privilege 

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 05/23/23 Page 13 of 15
14

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

Northern District of California

log withholding “[d]ocuments dated after the filing of the complaint reflecting privileged and 

confidential attorney/client communications with Nationwide’s counsel, including Dentons US 

LLP. Communications with counsel relating to this litigation are privileged and not relevant and 

have been withheld.” Schaffer Decl., Ex. N at 89.

Plaintiffs concede that communications with Dentons, Nationwide’s litigation counsel, are 

privileged. ECF No. 37 at 2. But they argue that the ambiguous language in the entry implies 

there are non-Dentons communications not detailed in the privilege logs, and which may not be 

privileged. Id. To the extent Plaintiffs challenge communications with or work done by Mr. 

Pardini as non-privileged, their arguments were already addressed by this Court. 

“[C]ounsel’s communications with the client and work product developed once the 

litigation commences are presumptively privileged and need not be included on any privilege log.” 

Mon Cheri Bridals, LLC v. Cloudflare, Inc., No. 19-CV-01356-VC (TSH), 2021 WL 1222492, at 

*3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2021) (quoting Ryan Inv. Corp. v. Pedregal de Cabo San Lucas, No. C 06-

3219 JW (RS), 2009 WL 5114077, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2009)). Accordingly, Nationwide 

need not include any communications with counsel, Dentons or otherwise, related to the present 

litigation, although the Court notes the privilege logs do contain entries dated after the filing of the 

Complaint that Nationwide claims are privileged communications “regarding this matter.” See, 

e.g., ECF No. 36-4 at 76 (NMIC-004149, Entry 248, dated July 15, 2022).

However, the record demonstrates that there was in fact claims-related activity that 

occurred after the Kumars filed their Complaint in June 2022, including Mr. Pardini’s final denial 

letter sent on September 1, 2022. Schaffer Decl., Ex. K. Therefore, to the extent it has not done 

so already, Nationwide shall revise its privilege logs to include communications and documents 

dated after the filing of this Complaint which relate to the handling of Plaintiffs’ claim.

IV. CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, Plaintiffs’ request to compel production of Mr. Pardini’s 

communications is DENIED, and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Nationwide either revise its 

privilege logs and/or provide Plaintiffs with additional information no later than two weeks from 

the date of this Order, to allow Plaintiffs to properly assess Nationwide’s privilege claims under 

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 05/23/23 Page 14 of 15
15

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

Northern District of California

Rule 26(b)(5)(A), by:

1) Identifying the attorney(s) involved in providing the legal advice documented in 

Nationwide’s claim diary and other privilege log entries where no attorney(s) has been 

identified; and 

2) To the extent it has not done so already, creating entries for any attorney-client 

privileged communications dated after the filing of the Complaint related to Plaintiffs’ 

insurance claim, not the present litigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2023

LISA J. CISNEROS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:23-cv-02312-DAD-AC Document 46 Filed 05/23/23 Page 15 of 15