Thibodeaux v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co
2:22-cv-06252
W.D. La.
Jul 11, 2024
Check Treatment
Docket
Opinion Summary

Facts

  1. Charles E. McKinney, a former inmate at FCI Memphis, filed a pro se § 2241 Petition alleging Eighth Amendment claims regarding his earned time credits under the First Step Act. [lines="12-16"].
  2. McKinney was convicted for possession with intent to distribute heroin and for being a felon in possession of a firearm, receiving a sentence of 112 months imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release. [lines="44-52"].
  3. He requested administrative remedies for the calculation of his FSA credits starting June 4, 2022, leading to various communications with prison officials regarding his eligibility for halfway/home confinement. [lines="60-68"].
  4. His FSA credits were eventually confirmed as applied, granting him 295 days of credits towards Residential Re-Entry Manager placement. [lines="78-80"].
  5. During the course of litigation, McKinney was released to a halfway house, where he received the relief he sought. [lines="130-131"].

Issues

  1. Whether the court can grant McKinney's petition for habeas relief under § 2241 given that he has received the relief requested. [lines="138-139"].
  2. Whether McKinney's claims for relief are now moot since he is no longer incarcerated. [lines="115-115"].

Holdings

  1. The court held that McKinney's § 2241 Petition is denied as moot, as he has already received the credits he sought during the litigation. [lines="141-142"].
  2. The court determined that McKinney's request for habeas relief could not proceed since the case was no longer active and did not present a live controversy. [lines="140-141"].

OPINION

ELRINE THIBODEAUX v. STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY CO.

CASE NO. 2:22-CV-06252

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAKE CHARLES DIVISION

July 11, 2024

JUDGE JAMES D. CAIN, JR.; MAGISTRATE JUDGE LEBLANC

Case 2:22-cv-06252-JDC-TPL Document 53 Filed 07/11/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 937

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Before the court is plaintiff Elrine Thibodeaux‘s Motion to Compel, which asks the court to compel defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company to provide reserve information, as requested in plaintiff‘s request for production no. 8 [doc. 21, att. 1, p. 2]. Doc. 21. State Farm opposes the motion. Doc. 30. Specifically, State Farm asserts it changed the reserve information in May 2024, nearly a year and a half after this case‘s filing, to reflect litigation strategy. Id. at pp. 2 & 6. Accordingly, State Farm argues the new reserve information is protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. Id. at p. 6. The court therefore ordered State Farm to produce for in camera inspection “the reserve information it claims to be privileged/protected.” Doc. 40. In response to that order, State Farm produced to the court a cover letter and documents Bates labeled E. THIBODEAUX SF - 000917, 000918, and 001004.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(1), “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party‘s claim or defense.” The discovery rules are accorded a broad and liberal treatment. . This court has previously ruled “loss reserve information and/or documentation may be relevant to a plaintiff‘s bad faith claim,” such as the one raised in this case. (citing ). Thus, the reserve information plaintiff seeks is discoverable unless it is privileged or protected.

The attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications “made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client, as well as the perceptions, observations, and the like, of the mental, emotional, or physical condition of the client in connection with such a communication.” La. Code Evid. art. 506(B). The information produced for in camera inspection is financial information from a claim file, not a communication. Therefore, the attorney-client privilege does not apply.

The work product doctrine “insulates a lawyer‘s research, analysis of legal theories, mental impressions, notes, and memoranda of witnesses’ statements from an opposing counsel‘s inquiries.” (citing ). The doctrine focuses solely on materials assembled and brought into being in anticipation of litigation. . State Farm claims the new reserve information reflects litigation strategy in anticipation of trial in this matter. Doc. 30, p. 6. After reviewing the reserve information and the cover letter, the court disagrees. Based on State Farm‘s representations, the digits that appear as a new “reserve amount” on the documents in question actually are only an internal numeric code that merely reflects the status of the claim, including that litigation is pending on the claim. This new “reserve amount,” or coding, cannot fairly be said to reflect litigation strategy or an attorney‘s mental impression of the case. After looking over the documents produced for in camera inspection, it is clear to the court the new reserve information is not protected by the work product doctrine.

Because the reserve amount is not privileged or protected by the work product doctrine, unredacted versions of documents Bates labeled E. THIBODEAUX SF - 000917, 000918, and 001004 are discoverable and must be produced to plaintiff.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Compel [doc. 21] be and is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by July 19, 2024, State Farm Fire & Casualty Company SHALL produce to plaintiff unredacted versions of documents Bates labeled E. THIBODEAUX SF - 000917, 000918, and 001004.

Under Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, if the court grants a motion to compel, it must award the movant reasonable expenses, including attorney‘s fees, incurred in making the motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A). The payment of expenses must not be ordered if certain exceptions apply. Id. The court finds plaintiff made a good faith effort to obtain the information prior to filing the motion, State Farm‘s failure to provide this information was not substantially justified, and no other circumstances known to the court at this time make an award of expenses unjust. Therefore,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that by July 19, 2024, plaintiff SHALL submit an affidavit and any necessary documentation detailing what it claims to be owed in connection with filing the instant motion. State Farm may submit a response by July 26, 2024. State Farm‘s response may address whether any factor set forth in Rule 37(a)(5)(A)(i)–(iii) applies, such that an award of expenses would be unjust.

THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers this 11th day of July, 2024.

THOMAS P. LEBLANC

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Read the detailed case summary