Western Horizons Living Centers v. Feland
2014 ND 175
| N.D. | 2014Background
- Western Horizons sues Dakota Travel Nurse on indemnification for a prior resident lawsuit.
- Dakota Travel Nurse sought discovery of the resident’s prior lawsuit against Western Horizons, including insurer claims file and settlement documents.
- Western Horizons asserts lawyer-client privilege and settlement communications are protected from discovery.
- District court orders Western Horizons to answer discovery; Western Horizons seeks supervisory writ to overturn.
- Court must determine scope of discovery, privilege, and whether in-chamber review is required, then remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the supervisory writ appropriate here? | Western Horizons argues no adequate remedy by appeal. | Dakota Travel Nurse contends writ not ripe and remedy exists by final judgment. | Writ appropriate; discretionary review granted. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion by compelling discovery? | Discovery sought is privileged or protected; overly broad. | Discovery requests are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. | District court abused discretion; order vacated and remanded for specific evaluation. |
| Are the insurer's claims file and settlement communications privileged? | Claims file protected by lawyer-client privilege; settlement communications protected by Rule 408. | Privilege/log waiver and substantial need override privilege. | Need for detailed, in-chamber review to assess privilege; blanket disclosures improper. |
| Must the court perform private in-chamber review to assess privilege/protection? | A private review is necessary to evaluate protections before disclosure. | Not specifically argued here beyond general privilege claims. | Yes; record inadequate without in-chamber examination; order reversed for targeted review. |
| What is the proper scope of remand after this ruling? | Retain the compelled disclosures if nonprivileged; ensure protection for privileged material. | Proceed with discovery disclosures as needed. | Remand for further proceedings to limit disclosures and protect privileged information. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holum v. Holum, 544 N.W.2d 148 (N.D. 1996) (ban on blanket privilege claims; private in-chamber review advised)
- Reems ex rel. Reems v. Hunke, 509 N.W.2d 45 (N.D. 1993) (discovery review standards in context of privileges)
- Jane H. v. Rothe, 488 N.W.2d 879 (N.D. 1992) (discovery and privilege considerations in privacy context)
- Polum v. North Dakota Dist. Court, 450 N.W.2d 761 (N.D. 1990) (foundational discovery principles and scope)
- Burlington Northern, Inc. v. North Dakota Dist. Court, 264 N.W.2d 453 (N.D. 1978) (scope of discovery and protective orders principles)