Moss v. Geico Indemnity Company

Filing 67

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 49 Motion to compel production of documents claimed privileged. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Smith on 5/9/2012. (Smith, Thomas)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
ELEANOR C. MOSS, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Roy L. Moss,
deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 5:10-cv-104-Oc-10TBS

GEICO INDEMNITY COMPANY,
Defendant.
______________________________________
ORDER
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Production. (Doc. 49).
Upon due consideration of the relevant filings (including Defendant’s response (Doc.
57) and Plaintiff’s supplemental brief (Doc. 66)), the Court GRANTS the motion in part
and DENIES the motion in part.
I. Background
On February 11, 2010, Plaintiff Eleanor C. Moss, the personal representative of
the estate of Roy L. Moss, filed a bad faith claim against insurer, GEICO Indemnity
Company (“GEICO”), after an excess verdict in a state court under-insured motorist
action. (Doc. 2). The case was removed to federal court on March 15, 2010 based on
diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff made several discovery requests, and although
GEICO produced some documents, it withheld others on the basis of attorney-client
privilege and work product protection. On February 24, 2012, Plaintiff moved to compel
the withheld documents listed in GEICO’s original privilege log. (Doc. 49). On March
23, 2012, the undersigned directed GEICO to submit the withheld documents to the
Court for in camera review. (Doc. 60). Defendant complied with the Court’s order and

submitted the documents along with a new, more expansive privilege log. (Doc. 61-1).
Because of this, the undersigned granted Plaintiff leave to file a reply brief. (Doc. 65).
The Court has concluded its independent examination of the documents and the
memoranda of the party and finds that the motion to compel production (Doc. 49) is now
ripe for adjudication.
II. Discussion
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “strongly favor full discovery whenever
possible.” Farnsworth v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir.
1985). Parties may obtain discovery of "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
party's claim or defense . . .” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). It is not necessary that the
material be admissible at trial “if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to
the discovery of admissible evidence.” Id. When a party withholds otherwise
discoverable matter on the basis that it is protected by attorney-client privilege or the
work product doctrine, that party must (1) clearly assert the claim, and (2) describe the
withheld item(s) with enough detail that “will enable other parties to assess the claim.”
FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(5(A).
In this case, Plaintiff asked GEICO to produce “[its] entire files, cover to cover,
both electronic and hard copy, regarding the underlying claim and lawsuit up to the date
of the underlying judgment.” (Doc. 49-3 ¶ 1). Plaintiff maintains that “all materials in an
insurer’s claims file that were created prior to the resolution of the underlying
contractual action are discoverable over the insurer’s work product objections.” (Doc.
49 ¶ 11) (citing Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005)). In
response to this request for production, GEICO produced some pertinent documents,
but withheld others for two reasons. (Doc. 49 ¶¶ 7, 9); see also (Doc. 49-4 at 1-2).
2

First, the insurer maintains that the withheld documents constitute work product that
was created in anticipation of the pending bad faith action, which is beyond the scope of
Ruiz, in which the court only required the production of pre-judgment material that
pertained to “coverage, benefits, liability or damages” of the underlying claim. (Doc. 57
at 4). Second, GEICO argues that to the extent Ruiz applies, Plaintiff’s motion to
compel “should be denied because the documents at issue are protected by the
attorney-client privilege.” (Id. at 5) (citing Genovese v. Provident Life & Accident Ins.
Co., 74 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2011)).
A. Work Product Protection
The court’s work product inquiry is two-fold. First, the court must determine
whether the disputed material constitutes “work product.” Under the federal rules, work
product is described as material (i.e. a document or tangible item) that is prepared in
anticipation of litigation “by or for another party or its representative (including the other
party's attorney . . .).” FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(3)(A). Second, the court must decide
whether any circumstances exist to compel the discovery of the work product.
Ordinarily, work product is not discoverable unless "the party shows that it has
substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue
hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means,” or that some other
principle applies to compel its production. Id.
In Ruiz, the Florida Supreme Court determined that work product is discoverable
in bad-faith actions brought pursuant to FLA. STAT. 624.155. Specifically, the court ruled
that,
[A]ll materials, including documents, memoranda, and
letters, contained in the underlying claim and related
litigation file material that was created up to and including
the date of resolution of the underlying disputed matter and
3

pertain in any way to coverage, benefits, liability, or
damages, should also be produced in a first-party bad faith
action.
899 So. 2d 1121, 1129-1130. The court further held that any such documents created
after the resolution of the underlying insurance action and after the initiation of the bad
faith action “may be subject to production upon a showing of good cause or pursuant to
an order of the court following an in-camera inspection.” Id. at 1130. In expressing its
rationale, the court explained that
[B]ad faith actions do not exist in a vacuum. A necessary
prerequisite for any bad faith action is an underlying claim
for coverage or benefits or an action for damages which the
insured alleges was handled in bad faith by the insurer.
Id. at 1124. Here, it is undisputed that the underlying under-insured motorist action was
resolved on February 11, 2010 (“date of judgment”). See (Doc. 49 ¶¶ 4, 10; Doc. 49-2 at
1-4; Doc. 57 at 3, 16).
GEICO has asserted work product (along with attorney-client privilege) as the
basis for its objection to the production of the documents that pre-date the date of
judgment. (Doc. 61-1). Since both protections are implicated, the Court will evaluate
GEICO’s objections to these documents according to the attorney-client framework, as
discussed in section II.B, infra.1
Likewise, GEICO has asserted work product as the primary basis for its objection
to the disclosure of documents that post-date the judgment.2 (Id.). Regarding these
1

See Genovese, 74 So. 3d at 1068 ("[T]he materials requested by the opposing party may
implicate both the work product doctrine and the attorney-client privilege. Where a claim of privilege is
asserted, the trial court should conduct an in-camera inspection to determine whether the sought-after
materials are truly protected by the attorney-client privilege.").
2
GEICO conceded that under Ruiz, its assertion of work product protection over certain
documents was not warranted. (Doc. 57 at 7). As a result, it withdrew its assertion of work product

(continued...)
4

eleven (11) documents, the Court finds as follows:
BATES NO.

DATE

BASIS FOR OBJECTION

COURT’S RULING

GLC 00290032

6/14/10

Post Judgement / Work Product

The objection is overruled. The
documents do not constitute work
product and must be produced.

GLC 0033

6/11/10

Work Product/Post Judgment

The objection is overruled. The
document is not work product and must
be produced.

GLC 0038

6/14/10

Post Judgment / Work Product

The objection is overruled. The
document is not work product and must
be produced.

GLC 0559

4/12/10

Post Judgment / Work Product

The objection is overruled. The
document is not work product and must
be produced.

GLC 05860592

5/5/10

Post Judgment / Work Product

The objection is overruled. The
documents do not constitute work
product and must be produced.

GLC 05980599

6/25/10;
6/28/10

Post Judgment / Work Product

The objection is overruled. The
documents do not constitute work
product and must be produced.

GLC 06000603

7/7/10; 7/9/10

Post Judgment / Work Product

The objection is overruled. The
documents do not constitute work
product and must be produced.

GLC 06040611

7/12/10

Post Judgment / Work Product

The objection is overruled. The
documents do not constitute work
product and must be produced.

GLC 0626

6/15/10

Post Judgment / Work Product

The objection is overruled. The
document is not work product and must
be produced.

GLC 0627

1/16/11

Post Judgment / Work Product

The objection is overruled. The
document is not work product and must
be produced.

GLC 0751

2/11/10 - 2/17/10

Post Judgment/Work Product

The objection is sustained. The
document is protected as work product.

B. Attorney-Client Privilege
In diversity cases, the application of the attorney-client privilege is governed by
state law. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Levesque, 263 F.R.D. 663, 666 (M.D. Fla. 2010)

(...continued)
protection over thirty-six (36) documents listed in the privilege log. (Doc. 57 at 8). GEICO maintains that
these documents “are protected by the attorney-client privilege and are not discoverable.” (Id. at 8).

5

(citing 1550 Brickell Assocs. v. Q.B.E. Ins. Co., 253 F.R.D. 697, 699 (S.D. Fla. 2008)).
Pursuant to Florida Statutes § 90.502, the attorney-client privilege is invoked when a
client consults a lawyer for the purpose of “obtaining legal services” or confers with a
lawyer who is currently rendering legal services. Unique problems arise in the context
of corporate claims of attorney-client privilege and the Florida Supreme Court requires a
corporation to demonstrate the following to assert the privilege:
(1) the communication would not have been made but for
the contemplation of legal services; (2) the employee making
the communication did so at the direction of his or her
corporate superior; (3) the superior made the request of the
employee as part of the corporation's effort to secure legal
advice or services; (4) the content of the communication
relates to the legal services being rendered, and the subject
matter of the communication is within the scope of the
employee's duties; [and] (5) the communication is not
disseminated beyond those persons who, because of the
corporate structure, need to know its contents.
1550 Brickell Associates, 253 F.R.D. at 699 (citing Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v.
Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377, 1383 (Fla. 1994)). The Florida Supreme Court has clearly
stated that its holding in Ruiz “does not apply to attorney-client privileged
communications in first-party bad faith actions.” Genovese, 74 So. 3d at 1067.
Accordingly, “attorney-client privileged communications are not discoverable in a first
party [bad faith] action.” Id. at 1066.
Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court rules as follows with regards to
GEICO’s attorney-client based objections:

BATES NO.
GLC 00020003

DATE
7/18/08

BASIS FOR OBJECTION
Attorney Client

COURT’S RULING
The objection is overruled. The
documents do not constitute attorneyclient communication and must be
produced.

6

GLC 00040007

9/21/10-9/23/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 0007a

9/21/10-9/22/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 00080010

7/1/107/2/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 00110012

6/8/10

Does not pertain to this case

The Court agrees that these documents
do not pertain to this case.
Accordingly, they are stricken from the
privilege log.

GLC 00130014

7/2/10-7/6/10

Attorney Client/Work
Product/Post Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 00150021

7/1/10-7/2/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 0022

6/25/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 00230027

6/23/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 0028

6/9/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 00340037

6/11/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained in part and
overruled in part.
The objection is sustained as to
documents at Bates Nos. GLC 00340035. The documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.
The objection is overruled as to
documents at Bates Nos. GLC 00360037. The documents do not constitute
attorney-client communication and
must be produced.

GLC 00390041

6/11/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

7

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 00420044

6/4/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained in part and
overruled in part.
The objection is sustained as to the
document at Bates No. GLC 0042. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.
The objection is overruled as to
documents at Bates Nos. GLC 00430044. The documents do not constitute
attorney-client communication and
must be produced.

GLC 00450047

6/4/10; 2/17/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 00480050

6/3/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 00510052a

1/14/10-2/1/10

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 00530060

3/17/103/21/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 00610069

3/23/10-3/24/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment/Irrelevant/Not responsive to
Plaintiff’s Request for Production

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 0070

2/11/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 0071

2/15/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 00720075

1/19/10-1/21/10

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 0076

2/1/10

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 0077

12/30/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 0081

12/30/09

Attorney Client

The objection is overruled. The
document does not constitute attorneyclient communication and must be
produced.

GLC 0083

12/30/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.

8

GLC 00840090

12/30/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained in part and
overruled in part.
The objection is sustained as to the
document at Bates No. GLC 0086. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.
The objection is overruled as to
documents at Bates Nos. GLC 00840085 and GLC 0087-0090. The
documents do not constitute attorneyclient communication and must be
produced.

GLC 00910093

12/18/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 01050106

12/15/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 0108

12/14/09

Attorney Client

The objection is overruled. The
document does not constitute attorneyclient communication and must be
produced.

GLC 01100133

12/14/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 01350137

12/12/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 0139

12/11/09

Attorney Client

The objection is overruled. The
document does not constitute attorneyclient communication and must be
produced.

GLC 01420144

12/11/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 01570158

12/11/09

Attorney Client

The objection is overruled. The
document does not constitute attorneyclient communication and must be
produced.

GLC 01590160

12/11/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 01610162

12/11/09

Attorney Client

The objection is overruled. The
documents do not constitute attorneyclient communication and must be
produced.

GLC 0165

12/10/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.

9

GLC 01750177

12/10/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained in part and
overruled in part.
The objection is sustained as to the
documents at Bates No. GLC 01760177. The documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.
The objection is overruled as to the
document at Bates No. GLC 0175. The
document does not constitute attorneyclient communication and must be
produced.

GLC 01800185

12/10/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 01890192

12/10/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 01940197

12/10/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 01980201

12/9/09-12/10/09

Attorney Client/Work Product/
Irrelevant/Not responsive to Plaintiff’s
Request for Production

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 0202

12/09/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 02270228

1/9/09

Attorney Client

The objection is overruled. The
documents do not constitute attorneyclient communication and must be
produced

GLC 02690270

9/5/08

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 0271

9/5/08

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 02720273

9/5/08

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 02820283

8/11/08

Attorney Client

The objection is overruled. The
documents do not constitute attorneyclient communication and must be
produced.

GLC 02850286

8/8/08

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 03300331

11/3/09

Attorney Client

The objection is overruled. The
documents do not constitute attorneyclient communication and must be
produced.

10

GLC 03320333

3/11/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 03660368

1/6/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 0369

12/30/08

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained in part and
overruled in part. The document shall
be produced, however, GEICO is
directed to redact the “Comments”
section at the bottom of the page.

GLC 0374

12/30/08

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained in part and
overruled in part. The document shall
be produced, however, GEICO is
directed to redact the “Comments”
section at the bottom of the page.

GLC 03760382

2/26/10-3/5/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 05640566

1/9/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 05670568

3/2/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 0569

7/14/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 05780579

8/4/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 0580

12/9/09

Attorney Client

The objection is sustained. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 05810584

1/20/10; 1/19/10;
1/14/10; 2/17/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 05930595

5/10/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained in part and
overruled in part.
The objection is sustained as to the
document at Bates No. GLC 0593. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.
The objection is overruled as to the
documents at Bates Nos. GLC 05940595. The documents do not constitute
attorney-client communication and
must be produced.

11

GLC 05960597

5/10/10

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained in part and
overruled in part.
The objection is sustained as to the
document at Bates No. GLC 0596. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.
The objection is overruled as to the
document at Bates No. GLC 0597. The
document does not constitute attorneyclient communication and must be
produced.

GLC 0612

2/4/11

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
document is protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 06130614

4/13/11

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 06150616

8/26/11

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

GLC 06170619

10/18/11

Attorney Client/Work Product/Post
Judgment

The objection is sustained. The
documents are protected by
attorney-client privilege.

Confidential Business Information/
Work Product/ Post Judgment /
Attorney-client

The objection is overruled. The
documents do not constitute attorneyclient communication. However, they
do constitute discoverable work product
and must be produced. See Ruiz, 899
So. 2d 1129-1130 )(The court held that
pre-judgment work product is
discoverable in bad faith actions
brought pursuant to FLA. STAT. 624.155.
The court further held that any such
documents created after the resolution
of the underlying insurance action and
after the initiation of the bad faith action
"may be subject to production upon a
showing of good cause or pursuant to
an order of the court following an
in-camera inspection.").
The objections are sustained in part
and overruled in part. The documents
at Bates Nos. GLC 0720-0749 shall be
produced, except that GEICO is
directed to redact any notes/messages
between the claims adjuster and inhouse counsel.

GLC 06830716

GLC 0720

7/17/08
2:51 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0721

8/8/08
11:23 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0722

8/20/08
4:58 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0722

8/22/08
2:54 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0722

8/26/08
11:06 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0723

9/4/08
9:32 am

Attorney-client

12

GLC 0723

9/4/08
10:17 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0724

9/5/08
1:18 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0724

9/8/08
2:32 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0724

9/9/08
3:04 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0725

9/10/08
2:23 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0726

10/16/08
1:34 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0726

11/5/08
10:22 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0726

11/10/08
2:58 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0727

11/10/08
2:59 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0727

11/10/08
3:30 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0727

11/13/08
11:55 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0727

11/14/08
2:27 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0728

12/30/08
11:39 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0728

1/6/09
4:13 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0728

1/9/09
7:55 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0729

1/12/09
11:06 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0729

2/5/09
1:08 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0729

2/10/09
11:57 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0730

2/25/09
9:12 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0730

3/3/09
2:25 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0731

5/13/09
3:35 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0732

6/12/09
10:32 am

Attorney-client

13

GLC 0732

6/12/09
1:17 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0733

6/23/09
10:58 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0733

6/23/09
12:04 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0733

6/23/09
3:46 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0734

7/20/09
9:41 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0735

8/4/09
2:50 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0735

8/14/09
7:43 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0735

8/18/09
2:49 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0736

8/26/09
9:22 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0736

9/15/09
8:36 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0736

9/15/09
10:57 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0736

9/21/09
11:23 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0736

9/28/09
3:57 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0736

9/29/09
1:00 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0736

10/6/09
11:38 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0737

10/6/09
12:49 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0737

10/6/09
12:59 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0737

10/6/09
3:16 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0737

10/19/09
1:29 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0737

10/20/09
10:11 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0737

10/22/09
3:19 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0738

10/28/09
11:50 am

Attorney-client

14

GLC 0739

11/6/09
10:18 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0740

11/12/09
8:19 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0740

11/12/09
10:08 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0741

11/30/09
1:39 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0745

12/10/09
10:32 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0745

12/10/09
10:43 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0745

12/10/09
10:47 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0745

12/10/09
10:48 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0749

12/12/09
9:07 am

Attorney-client

GLC 0749

12/14/09
1:34 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 0749

12/15/09
12:58 pm

Attorney-client

GLC 07520776

2-26-10 and after

Attorney Client/Post Judgment / Work
Product

15

The objection is sustained in part and
overruled in part. The documents at
Bates Nos. GLC 0752-0776 shall be
produced, except that GEICO is
directed to redact any notes/messages
between the claims adjuster and inhouse counsel.

Concerning the documents contained in GEICO’s Home Office Claims Legal File
which it says are privileged:
BATES NO.
GHOC 00010162

DATE

BASIS FOR OBJECTION
Attorney Client/ Work Product/ Post
Judgment

COURT’S RULING
The objection is sustained in part and
overruled in part.
The objection is overruled as to the
follow documents:
• GHOC 0001-0003
• GHOC 0009-0012
• GHOC 0014-0084
• GHOC 0090-0091
• GHOC 0115
• GHOC 0116-0117
• GHOC 0118
• GHOC 0123-0125
• GHOC 0132-0135
• GHOC 0139-0162
These documents do not constitute
attorney-client communication and
must be produced.
The objection is sustained in part and
overruled in part with regards to the
documents at Bates Nos. GHOC 00920093 and GHOC 0126-0127. These
documents shall be produced, except
that GEICO is directed to redact any
notes/messages between the claims
adjuster and Mr. Corry, GEICO’s inhouse counsel.
The objection is sustained in all other
respects.

III. Conclusion
Upon due consideration it is hereby ORDERED that :
1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel production (Doc. 49) is GRANTED in part and
DENIED in part, as described herein.
2. The documents at Bates No. GLC 0011-0012 are STRICKEN from the
privilege log. The Court agrees with GEICO that these documents do not
pertain to this case.
3. In this instance, the Court finds that an award of attorneys fees or costs to

16

Plaintiff would be unjust. See FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Ocala, Florida, on May 9, 2012.

Copies to all Counsel

17