Therefore, if a party does not attempt to recover its own attorneys` fees and does not attempt to use its lawyers` settlement documents to challenge the party`s attorneys` fees, the party`s counsel should not be limited by the prospect of having to disclose them completely when drafting or presenting its accounting documents. Under California law, “[i]nvoices for legal services are generally not disclosed for legal advice purposes. On the contrary, they are communicated to the client for the purposes of the settlement and do not fall within the scope of the representation of a lawyer, insofar as they have no other object or effect. Los Angeles Cty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 5th 282, 295 (2016). Although an offer of settlement under Rule 167 could result in an application for counsel from the insurer, the court recognized that Rule 167 itself provides for a procedure for reopening the discovery so that a party can determine the appropriateness of the costs claimed.  The plaintiff`s application for ex-pane by the defendant BMW of North America, LLC (“BMW”) was filed in court and requests the presentation of certain documents relating to the applicants` attorneys` fees. ECF No. 118.
The Grievor appealed. ECF No. 120. The court ordered a response from BMW, which BMW submitted in time. ECF No. 122. The claimant then appealed BMW.1`s response ECF Nos. 124, 126. After a thorough examination and for the reasons set out below, the Court of Justice partially responds to the request and partially rejects it. .