In Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America, No. 2:13-cv-00380-JAD-GWF (D. Nev. May 31, 2017), the parties had worked cooperatively on discovery for several years, exchanging more than 800,000 pages, and obtaining more than 1.5 million pages of documents through third party subpoenas. Between May 2013 and September 2016, the parties filed eight agreed motions to extend discovery deadlines. During that time, defendant Travelers had responded to discovery with what the court later determined were deficient objections. Travelers had agreed to produce all non-privileged responsive documents and objected generally that certain document requests sought documents that “may be privileged and confidential under either the work product and/or attorney-client privileges.” Travelers did not provide a privilege log or otherwise provide any information regarding documents that had been withheld, and plaintiff’s only complaint about the absence of a log was in a single letter sent to Travelers in January 2015. In February 2017, the parties engaged in an unsuccessful mediation. In March 2017, plaintiff changed firms. Following that change, “the parties’ relationship [became] substantially more contentious.” Travelers produced a partial privilege log less than a month after receiving a demand for one from plaintiff’s new counsel, but Plaintiff nevertheless moved to compel production of withheld documents based on Travelers’ failure to assert proper objections or timely serve a log. The court noted that the Ninth Circuit has rejected a per se waiver rule that deems privilege waived if a log is not provided within Rule 34’s 30-day time limit, and instead applies a multi-factor analysis to determine whether waiver is appropriate. Here, the time between Travelers’ log and its production in response to three sets of document requests was 3 years 3 months, just under 2 years, and 4 months, respectively. In addition, there was no evidence that Travelers had made any effort to prepare a log prior to March 2017 or that it had an agreement with plaintiff respecting the time for production of a log. The court found that, although Travelers may have been lulled into complacency by plaintiff’s prior counsel, that “is not a legitimate excuse for not producing a privilege log,” so Travelers’ failure to submit a log waived otherwise applicable privileges.