Thibodeaux v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co
2:22-cv-06252
W.D. La.Jul 11, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Elrine Thibodeaux filed a Motion to Compel against defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. to obtain reserve information relevant to her bad faith claim.
- The reserve information at issue was updated by State Farm in May 2024, approximately 18 months after litigation began, to reflect its litigation strategy.
- State Farm claimed the new reserve information was protected by attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine.
- The court ordered in camera inspection of the reserved documents to determine if these privileges applied.
- Upon review, the court found that the reserve information consisted of internal codes reflecting claim status, not privileged attorney work product or confidential communication.
- The court granted the plaintiff’s motion and ordered State Farm to produce unredacted documents and to pay plaintiff’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Discoverability of reserve info | Reserve information is relevant to bad faith claim | Reserve information updated reflects litigation strategy; privileged | Reserve info is discoverable unless privileged |
| Attorney-client privilege | Not applicable to purely financial reserve info | Applied to reserve info created for litigation | Attorney-client privilege does not apply to claim data |
| Work product doctrine | Reserve info is factual and not legal work product | New reserve info reflects mental impressions for litigation | Reserve info is only internal codes, not attorney work product |
| Award of expenses under Rule 37 | Plaintiff entitled to expenses for making the motion | State Farm not substantially justified in withholding | Plaintiff entitled to reasonable expenses and attorney’s fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Herbert v. Lando, 441 U.S. 153 (discovery rules are broad and liberal)
- Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (work product doctrine scope and attorney mental impressions)
- Dunn v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 927 F.2d 869 (work product doctrine insulates attorney's mental impressions)