UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TIMIKA KEATHLEY,

Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cv-11888

v. Paul D. Borman

United States District Judge

GRANGE INSURANCE Mona K. Majzoub

COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, United States Magistrate Judge

Defendant.

___________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL

DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE THE SUBJECT OF

A COURT ORDERED IN CAMERA REVIEW: ALL OF THE REQUESTED

DOCUMENTS ARE PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN

DEFENDANT AND ITS OUTSIDE COUNSEL PROTECTED BY THE

DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND/OR THE WORK

PRODUCT DOCTRINE

The Court’s Opinion and Order of March 30, 2017, stated, inter alia, that the

Court would conduct an in camera review of the Defendant’s claimed privileged

communications between its employees and its outside legal counsel “to verify (or

defeat) Grange’s assertion, which Grange bears the burden of establishing, that Mr.

Walker [outside counsel] was retained solely for the purpose of, and did through these

many claimed privileged communications, provide only legal advice regarding

1
coverage.” ECF No. 58, p. 6.

In conducting its review, the Court recognized the competing legal doctrines

that apply to its review. On one side is Defendant Grange’s right to protection of its

documents relating to legal advice under the attorney-client privilege and the work

product doctrine. On the other side is the Plaintiff’s right, in the context of an

insurance claim, to “communications by attorneys acting as insurance claims

investigators, rather than as attorneys, [which] are not protected by the attorney client

privilege.” 7 Mile & Keystone, LLC v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. #11-cv-12930, 2012

WL 6553 585, at *3(E.D. MI, Dec. 14, 2012) (“Defendant cannot simply delegate

investigative work to a lawyer and claim it is protected by its lawyer-client privilege

or the work product doctrine.”) 

Defendant provided the documents ordered for in camera review on April 26,

2017: a copy of its cover letter was provided to Plaintiff’s counsel.

Per the March 30, 2017 Order (ECF No. 58, p. 7), the Court has reviewed the

following documents: 56-57, 90-98, 138-139, 141-142, 143-145, 187-189, 192-197,

215, 221, 227, 576, 578, 581, 582, 598, 599, 601-602, 603-650.

The Court concludes that all of the documents provided by Defendant Grange

under this order are privileged communications between outside counsel and Grange

employees, and accordingly are protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the

2
work product doctrine. In particular, the Court finds that many of the communications

dealt with outside counsel’s preparation for the Examination Under Oath (EUO) of the

Plaintiff, a legal proceeding.

In conclusion, the Court is satisfied that Defendant’s claims of protection from

disclosure are valid; the documents are privileged under the attorney-client privilege

and/or the work product doctrine. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion

to compel discovery of those documents.

SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 6, 2017

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney

or party of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on July 6, 2017.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

3