Johnsen and Allphin Properties v. First American Title Insurance, No. 2:2012cv00740 - Document 90 (D. Utah 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER- Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production of Non-Privileged Documents or in the Alternative Conduct in Camera Review of Privilege Claim 57 is Denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 8/10/2015. (las)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Johnsen and Allphin Properties v. First American Title Insurance Doc. 90 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION JOHNSEN AND ALLPHIN PROPERTIES, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Case No. 2:12-cv-740-RJS-PMW v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, a California corporation, Defendant. District Judge Robert J. Shelby Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner District Judge Robert J. Shelby referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 Plaintiff Johnson and Allphin Properties, LLC (“Plaintiff”) previously filed a motion to compel production of non-privileged documents by Defendant First American Title Insurance Company (“Defendant”), or in the alternative, have the court conduct an in camera review of the documents.2 In response, this court ordered the parties to scrutinize carefully both claims of privilege and the demands for production, and to confer in an attempt to resolve the issues 1 Docket no. 19. 2 Docket no. 57. Dockets.Justia.com without further court involvement.3 The parties submitted a report to the court on their efforts on June 25, 2015.4 The parties appear to have taken the court’s order very seriously, and narrowed the hundreds of pages of disputed documents to just sixteen documents. The court performed an in camera review of the remaining documents in question and finds that Defendant’s assertions of attorney-client privilege and/or attorney work product appear warranted and proper. The court commends the parties for their efforts in resolving this dispute. In light of the parties’ significant efforts, the court finds that sanctions are not justified against either party. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 10th day of August, 2015. BY THE COURT: PAUL M. WARNER United States Magistrate Judge 3 Docket no. 86. 4 Docket no. 89. 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
