Are Indemnification Agreements Discoverable
The court compares the compensation report to the insurance report and finds that “the common interests between the insurer and the insured create, through a compensation contract, a common interest between the right to compensation and the right to compensation.” Insurance is nowhere to be found. According to the 2017.010 and 2031.010 CCP, a party may receive relevant insurance policies in the case of a counterfeiting action. Irvington-Moore, Inc. / Superior Court (1993) 14 CA4th 733. However, the insurance claim is only visible if the application is integrated into the policy. The investigation is authorized by the CCP 2017.210. California discovery law expressly provides for the discovery of insurance contracts under which a carrier may be required to comply with all or part of a potential judgment or to compensate or repay payments made for the purpose of executing the judgment. CCP No 2017.210. The statute also provides for determining whether the report of the debt involved in the appeal is contested.
CCP No 2017.210. However, since the existence of liability insurance may not be relevant to the underlying purpose of the action, THE CCP `2017.210 has a warning language in which it is stated that the insurance information contained in the evidence is not permitted at trial because of the disclosure. GeoMetWatch seeks to establish joint defence or compensation agreements between or between the defendants on the basis that they are relevant, proportionate and non-privileged. Alan Hall, Tempus Global Data and Island Park (together “Hall Defendants”) claim that these documents are not found because they are privileged and are not relevant to the claims and defences in the lawsuit. In GeoMetWatch Corp. v. Hall, “[t]he question of whether common defence agreements are likely to be discovered or protected by the privilege of common defence is bandwidth.” Case No. 1:14-cv-60-JNP-PMW, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91274, at `5 (D.
Utah, July 12, 2016). The Tribunal cited decisions finding that “common defence agreements are effectively protected by the privilege of the common defence,” but also found that “the courts have established that common defence agreements are not protected by that privilege.” Id. at 5-6. The Tribunal ultimately concluded that “common defence agreements are not relevant to the parties` respective claims and/or defences” in the compensation dispute case. Id. at 7. The authors draw a contrast between the forced automatic disclosure of process funding and the disclosure arrangements that Justice Dan Polster recently took in the Northern District of Ohio in the multi-district opioid dispute (discussed here). Polster J. ordered the parties to disclose ex parte and in camera all disputes, with evidence that “without exceptional circumstances, the court will not leave any findings in the [third] funding.” The authors suggest that “if this approach were adopted on a large scale by the courts, it would create a middle ground for judges to evaluate funding agreements without giving defendants an unfair advantage.