Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Bobrick Washroom Equipment, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TRAVELERS PROPERTY
CASUALTY COMPANY OF
AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
BOBRICK WASHROOM
EQUIPMENT, INC.,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:18-cv-00094
(SAPORITO, J.)
MEMORANDUM
On October 25, 2017, Travelers Property Casualty Company of
America 	(“Travelers”) 	filed 	this 	action 	against 	Bobrick 	Washroom
Equipment, Inc. (“Bobrick”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California seeking to recoup approximately $7,300,000 in
counsel fees and costs associated with
Scranton Products, Inc. v. Bobrick
Washroom 	Equipment 	Inc., 	No. 	3:14-CV-00853 	(M.D. 	Pa.) 	(the
“underlying action”). (Doc. 1). On September 27, 2018, in response to a
document 	request 	from 	Bobrick, 	Travelers 	inadvertently 	disclosed
alleged privileged materials. Since that inadvertent disclosure in 2018,
this case has yet to be fully litigated on its merits. The parties have
Case 3:18-cv-00094-JFS-PJC Document 250 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 6

- 2 -
extensively litigated the issue of whether those inadvertently disclosed
documents should be returned back to Travelers or if Travelers waived
privilege of those documents.
I. 	Background
“When deciding whether inadvertently produced documents should
be returned a two-step analysis must be done.”
Peterson v. Bernardi, 262
F.R.D. 424, 427 (D.N.J. 2009). “First, it must be determined if the
documents 	in 	question 	are 	privileged.”
	Id. 	“Second, 	if 	privileged
documents were inadvertently produced then the three elements of FRE
502(b) must be satisfied[.]”
Id. On November 6, 2025, we scheduled an
evidentiary hearing concerning the second step in the two-step analysis
to determine the issue of whether Travelers waived its privilege through
the inadvertent disclosure of documents under Rule 502(b) of the Federal
Rules of Evidence. That hearing was conducted over a period of two days
on November 6, 2025, and November 18, 2025. On January 14, 2026, we
issued our finding that Travelers did not waive attorney-client privilege
and work-product protection through its inadvertent disclosure under
Rule 502(b). (Doc. 248). Now before the Court is a motion concerning the
first step in that two-step analysis. Bobrick has filed a motion for
in
Case 3:18-cv-00094-JFS-PJC Document 250 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 6

- 3 -
camera review seeking to review documents concerning that inadvertent
disclosure. (Doc. 203). Bobrick contests Travelers’s contention that those
documents are privileged. The motion has been briefed by both parties
(Doc. 204; Doc. 206; Doc. 207) and the matter is ripe for review.
II. 	Discussion
“[T]he decision to conduct an in camera review generally lies within
the discretion of the court.”
Logue v. Rand Corp., 610 F. Supp. 3d 399, 401
(D. Mass. 2022);
see also Armstrong v. Exec. Off. of the President, 97 F.3d
575, 578 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“[D]istrict court judges [are given] broad
discretion in determining whether in camera review is appropriate.”)
(citing
Center for Auto Safety v. Environmental Protection Agency, 731
F.2d 16, 20 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). “
In camera review is not appropriate merely
because a party requests the district court undertake the endeavor.”
Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. A-B Distributors, Inc., No. 95-241-CIV-J-20, 1996
WL 34718746, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 28, 1996) (citing
United States v.
Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 571 (1989)). To justify an
in camera review, a party
must demonstrate “a factual basis adequate to support a good faith belief
by a reasonable person” that
in camera review will reveal improperly held
documents.
In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 745 F.3d 681, 688 (3d Cir. 2014)
Case 3:18-cv-00094-JFS-PJC Document 250 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 6

- 4 -
(citing
Zolin, 491 U.S. at 572). “Where there is a sufficient evidentiary
showing that an issue exists regarding the application of a privilege, the
court must utilize its own discretion and determine whether in camera
review is appropriate under the circumstances presented.”
Anheuser-
Busch, Inc., 1996 WL 34718746, at *1 (citing
Zolin, 491 U.S. at 571–72.)
Nonetheless,
	in 	camera 	review 	is 	generally 	disfavored.
	Nationwide
Payment Sols., LLC v. Plunkett, 831 F. Supp. 2d 337, 338 (D. Me. 2011);
Diamond State Ins. Co. v. Rebel Oil Co., 157 F.R.D. 691, 700 (D. Nev.
1994) (“In camera review is generally disfavored.”).
Here, we find that Bobrick has failed to establish a reasonable
factual 	basis 	that 	justifies 	or 	necessitates 	an
	in-camera 	review 	of
Travelers’s communications with its counsel. First, and most importantly,
Bobrick requested an
in camera review of those communications because
“[w]ithout inquiry into litigation counsel’s ‘reasonable steps’ to prevent
the 	inadvertent 	production, 	the 	Court 	cannot 	determine 	whether
Travelers 	can 	meet 	its 	evidentiary 	burden 	of 	proving 	that,
notwithstanding its production of privileged documents, the production
did not constitute a waiver.” (Doc. 207, at 5). However, we have since
found that Travelers took reasonable steps to protect the inadvertent
Case 3:18-cv-00094-JFS-PJC Document 250 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 6

- 5 -
disclosure and therefore, it did not waive attorney-client privilege and
work-product protection. Thus, Bobrick’s primary contention is deemed
moot. Second, we note that Bobrick’s belief that an
in camera review of
the documents will reveal non-privileged documents is speculative and
does not substitute as a factual basis to support its belief.
See, e.g., (Doc.
204, at 5–6) (suggesting that it “believes many of [Travelers’s attorneys]
were working in a non-legal capacity” without adequate factual support);
(
Id., 	at 	6–7) 	(speculating 	that 	communications 	“suggest 	[that] 	…
conversations were not for the purpose of providing legal advice to
Travelers” without factual support). Therefore, we find that an
in camera
review 	of 	Travelers’s 	documents 	is 	not 	appropriate 	under 	the
circumstances and Bobrick’s instant motion will be denied.
In 	light 	of 	our 	ruling, 	we 	must 	also 	reiterate 	the 	unique
circumstances concerning the inadvertent disclosure issue in this case.
The parties have litigated this issue for approximately eight years. It has
involved seven judges from two different district courts and survived a
transfer from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
to this Court. Indeed, it may be the most litigated inadvertent disclosure
issue this district court has ever encountered. Therefore, based on these
Case 3:18-cv-00094-JFS-PJC Document 250 Filed 01/20/26 Page 5 of 6

- 6 -
circumstances, we believe it is time that both parties are presented the
opportunity to fully litigate this case on its merits.
III. 	Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Bobrick’s motion for
in camera review
seeking to review documents concerning that inadvertent disclosure is
denied.
An appropriate order follows.
Dated: January 20, 2026
	s/Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
United States District Judge
Case 3:18-cv-00094-JFS-PJC Document 250 Filed 01/20/26 Page 6 of 6