EVANSVILLE, Ind. - A federal magistrate judge in Indiana on Aug. 2 granted a motion to compel by Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland (F&D) for all attorney communications made by an in-house counsel prior to Feb. 18, 2010, in a Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. suit on behalf of a failed bank over a financial institution bond, finding that "merely substituting notice or proof of loss is not sufficient to show that $(the failed bank$) reasonably anticipated litigation" (FDIC v. Fidelity and Deposit Co. of Maryland, No. 11-0019, S.D. Ind.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108637).