The case of Carter v. Ozoeneh, Download Carter v. Ozoeneh (W.D.N.C. Case No. 3.2008cv614, Memorandum and Opinion Filed July 22, 2010) FREE ACCESS TO THIS OFFICIAL REPORT also published as 2010 WL 2889582 (W.D.N.C. July 22, 2010)(Westlaw subscription required to access Westlaw) is unique. At least, it is not in the garden variety of most Federal Cases that is certain.
Plaintiff Ronald Carter sued over a patent. He claimed to be the sole inventor of certain technology involved in the patent. He and his corporation sued his lawyers, the Clements Walker Law Firm, and various persons (apparently almost all but not quite all of whom are lawyers who represented him regarding the patent), for alleged malpractice in connection with the patent. It is confusing, but apparently there is another Defendant, one Emmanuel Ozoeneh, who may have been "either the sole inventor or co-inventor of the invention." It is clear, however, that Lawyers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of North Carolina issued a Professional Liability Insurance Policy to the Defendant Law Firm and a separate such Policy to one of the individual Defendants (not Mr. Ozoeneh). Carter v. Ozoeneh, 2010 WL 2889582 at *1.
Mr. Ozoeneh had a difficult time obtaining defense counsel. Lawyers Mutual undertook to pay Mr. Ozoeneh's legal fees "through summary judgment". Id. When Plaintiffs found out about this arrangement, they filed an Amended Complaint "asserting state law claims against Lawyers Mutual for tortious interference with contract, maintenance, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. Plaintiffs also allege bad faith, malice, and officious intermeddling by Lawyers Mutual." Id. at *2.
Thereafter, the Plaintiffs propounded Interrogatories and Requests for Production, the nature of which is not entirely clear from the Magistrate Judge's Opinion, and the Defendant Lawyers Mutual responded and produced privilege logs as to certain withheld materials, the identity or description of which is not entirely clear, either. However, it is clear that at least some of the withheld materials were delivered to the Magistrate Judge for an In Camera Inspection. Id. at *2-*3. The Magistrate Judge held that all of the materials inspected In Camera are privileged from discovery and do not need to be made available to the Plaintiffs. Some of the items are protected by the Attorney-Client Privilege, and two items -- one an attached Memorandum and the other an Expert Witness's Invoice -- are protected from discovery as Work Product, the Court held. Id. at *3.
The results in decided cases with reported In Camera Inspections of contested discovery materials are addressed by Dennis J. Wall, "Litigation and Prevention of Insurer Bad Faith" throughout Chapter 8, "Discovery From Insurers Concerning Their Handling of Third-Party Claims," and Chapter 12 concerning "Discovery From Insurers" in First Party Cases (Shepard's/McGraw-Hill First Edition, West Publishing Company Second Edition and 2010 Supplement).
Please Read The Disclaimer.
Comments