10Document No. 19:
This document is a letter, dated June 14, 1999, from a representative of Bovis, to an AIG claims handler. Even though the Trochimko lawsuit (naming Bovis as a defendant) had already been filed by that date, it appears from the letter that its author may not have been aware of that fact. This is certainly possible, given that the docket for the Trochimko action shows that Bovis was not served with process in that action until June 17, 1999, and, even then, through the Secretary of State. (See
99 Civ. 3480, Dkt. No. 2.) The letter itself does not contain any privileged communications, and does not, “in pursuit of legal representation,” contain disclosures regarding the insured's potential liability. American Special Risk Ins. Co. v. Greyhound Dial Corp., No. 90 Civ.2066(RPP), 1995 WL 442151, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 26, 1995) (quoting Linde Thomson Langworthy Kohn & Van Dyke, P.C. v. Resolution Trust Corp., 5 F.3d 1508, 1515 (D.C.Cir.1993)). Further, on its face, the letter does not appear to have been written “because of” actual or anticipated litigation. The most that can be said on this point is that the letter notes the possibility of litigation, which is not sufficient, in the absence of any indication that this possibility was the motivation for the letter's creation. See
In re Grand Jury Proceedings, No. M–11–189, 2001 WL 1167497, at * 14 (S.D.N.Y. Oct.3, 2001); see generally
Adlman, 134 F.3d at 1202. Thus, even though the situation presented by this document is unusual, the document is not covered by the work product doctrine and should be produced.