Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00685/USCOURTS-almd-2_13-cv-00685-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1001 E.R.I.S.A.

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION 

GARNET TURNER ) 

individually and on behalf of all others ) 

similarly situated, et al., ) 

 )

 Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

CASE NO. 2:13-CV-685-WKW 

 (WO) 

_______________________________________________ 

JOHN E. KLAAS ) 

on behalf of himself and all others ) 

similarly situated, et al., ) 

) 

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. )

)

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, )

)

Defendant. )

CASE NO. 2:15-CV-406-WKW 

 (WO) 

ORDER

 On October 28, 2016, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”) filed a motion to 

quash a FED. R. CIV. P. 45 third party subpoena served by the plaintiffs on Minnesota Life 

Insurance Company and Securian Financial Group (“Minnesota Life”). The subpoena 

(doc. # 29-2) is remarkably broad in its scope, requesting the production of literally all 

documents relating to Allstate’s provision of life insurance to its employees. On 

November 29, 2016, the court heard argument on the motion. Based on the court’s review 

of the briefs and exhibits, including material produced for in camera inspection, the court 

Case 2:13-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 152 Filed 12/07/16 Page 1 of 6
2

concludes that the motion to quash the subpoena is due to be granted in part as reflected in 

this order. Before getting to the heart of this dispute, there are a few preliminary issues 

which the court will resolve first in no particular order. 

A. Timeliness of the Motion to Quash. The plaintiffs argue that the motion to 

quash is untimely because FED. R. CIV. P. 45(d)(2)(B) requires that an objection be served 

the earlier of the time for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is served, and Allstate 

did not file its motion within those parameters. This contention is frivolous. Rule 45 

plainly imposes its time constraint only on the “person commanded to produce 

documents.” Allstate was not that person. As a fall back position, the plaintiffs argue that 

in any event Allstate’s motion was unreasonably late. The court rejects this argument. At 

the time the motion was filed, no scheduling order had been entered in this case. Thus, no 

deadlines were affected, and the plaintiffs suffered no prejudice. 

B. Work Product. Allstate contends that the materials sought by the plaintiffs are 

protected work product as defined by FED. R. CIV. P. 26. Following oral argument, 

Allstate provided to the court for in camera review the documents which are at issue. 

After review of those documents and upon consideration of counsels’ argument, the court 

concludes that to the extent the subpoena commands production of communications and 

documents prepared by or for Allstate at the request of its counsel the motion to quash 

should be granted. First, there is no question that the documents were prepared in 

anticipation of litigation since these cases had already been filed, and the documents were 

requested in preparation for mediation. See e.g., United States v Adlman, 134 F.3d 1194, 

1196 (11th Cir. 1998). The documents showing the nature of the various requests do 

indeed reflect the thoughts of counsel regarding information needed for the mediation. 

Case 2:13-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 152 Filed 12/07/16 Page 2 of 6
3

While there is no direct discussion of litigation strategy, see Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 

495 (1947), any astute lawyer would be able to recognize counsel’s underlying approach 

based on the requests. 

 Along with the materials delivered to the court for its in camera review, counsel for 

Allstate delivered a letter to the court in which counsel represented that “Allstate has not 

seen the documents Minnesota Life has collected for production, and therefore cannot be 

sure that this is the entirety of documents protected by the work product doctrine.” 

Consequently, the court will order that Allstate conduct its privilege review of all of the 

documents, including the documents produced for in camera review, which Minnesota 

Life intends to produce in response to the subpoena, not later than January 17, 2017, and 

serve a FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(5)(A) privilege log on the plaintiffs on or before January 23, 

2017. 

C. Information Not At Issue. As already noted, the breadth of the plaintiffs’ 

request is large. However, at oral argument the plaintiffs confirmed that they are not 

seeking information about current employees of Allstate or former Allstate employees 

who retired before 1990 or after 2014. Thus, to the extent that the subpoena covers 

information about this group of employees, the motion to quash will be granted. 

D. The Heart of the Matter. The plaintiffs contend that Allstate provided 

employees with a company-paid retiree life insurance plan that was to provide them with 

life insurance at no cost to them after retirement. In 2013, Allstate notified the retirees 

that beginning in 2016, it would no longer pay these insurance premiums. That notice led 

to these consolidated class actions. 

Case 2:13-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 152 Filed 12/07/16 Page 3 of 6
4

 Allstate does not seeks to quash the entire subpoena.1 Rather, Allstate seeks a 

protective order only as to its work product and the personal identifying information about 

the Allstate retirees who are putative class members. The court has resolved the work 

product issue. So, all that is left is whether the plaintiffs can obtain information about the 

putative class members. 

 In Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (1978), the Court addressed a 

similar question. 

Respondents' attempt to obtain the class members' names and addresses 

cannot be forced into the concept of “relevancy” described above. The 

difficulty is that respondents do not seek this information for any bearing that 

it might have on issues in the case. If respondents had sought the information 

because of its relevance to the issues, they would not have been willing, as 

they were, to abandon their request if the District Court would accept their 

proposed redefinition of the class and method of sending notice. Respondents 

argued to the District Court that they desired this information to enable them 

to send the class notice, and not for any other purpose. Taking them at their 

word, it would appear that respondents' request is not within the scope of 

Rule 26(b)(1). 

Id. at 352–53 (citations and footnotes omitted). 

 There is no question that the information sought cannot be for the purpose of 

establishing FED. R. CIV. P. 23 numerosity. All parties agree that the classes are in the 

thousands. At oral argument, the court asked counsel to identify the reasons the plaintiffs 

sought the personally identifying information about putative class members. Counsel’s 

responses are illuminating. First, counsel stated he just needed the names and then 

admitted that he did not know what he was going to do with that information. Then 

counsel said some of these persons may be witnesses regarding representations made at a 

                                                            

1 The plaintiffs argue that Allstate lacks standing to seek a protective order through its motion to quash. 

Simply put, for the various reasons put forth by Allstate (doc. # 130 at 7-8) the court finds the plaintiffs’ 

arguments unpersuasive. 

Case 2:13-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 152 Filed 12/07/16 Page 4 of 6
5

meeting about the retired employees getting “paid up” insurance. 

 At the time this order will be entered, no motion for class certification has been 

filed. Counsel’s answers to the court’s questions first underscore that, at this juncture, the 

information sought is based purely on speculation. Secondly, if Allstate did make 

representations at a meeting with retirees (a matter about which discovery would be 

permissible), obtaining a list of names would shed no light on who among the people 

identified on the list would be witnesses. That information appropriately should be 

obtained from Allstate. 

 In short, the plaintiffs have not identified how the information they seek would 

have any bearing on the issues in this case. The court will grant the motion to quash with 

respect to the personally identifying information about Allstate retirees. 

 Accordingly, it is 

 ORDERED that the motion to quash be and is hereby GRANTED as to the 

following information: 

 1. Current employees of Allstate or former Allstate employees who retired before 

1990 or after 2014; 

 2. Documents which Allstate finds constitute work product after conducting a 

privilege review as specified in this order; and 

 3. Personally identifying information about members of the putative classes. 

 It is further 

 ORDERED that (1) on or before January 17, 2017, Allstate shall conduct a further 

privilege review of the documents produced to the court in camera and a privilege review 

of any other documents which Minnesota Life will produce in response to the subpoena, 

Case 2:13-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 152 Filed 12/07/16 Page 5 of 6
6

and (2) on or before January 23, 2017, Allstate shall serve on the plaintiffs a privilege log 

in accordance with FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(5)(A). 

 It is further 

 ORDERED that in all other respects the motion to quash is DENIED and that on 

January 17, 2017, Minnesota Life may respond to the subpoena in accordance with this 

order. 

 Done this 7th day of December, 2016 

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

 CHARLES S. COODY 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:13-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 152 Filed 12/07/16 Page 6 of 6