Opinion ID: 1596181
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Are Documents Protected By the Work Product Doctrine Subject to Discovery?

Text: The final issue presented by the deputy's order compelling production of Liberty Mutual's claim file arises from the work product doctrine contained in Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 122(c). Rule 122(c) gives a qualified immunity from discovery to any documents or tangible things prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative. Shook, 497 N.W.2d at 886 (quoting Iowa R.Civ.P. 122(c)). Pickering does not dispute that the claim file was prepared in anticipation of litigation and contains protected work product. However, he contends that he has made a sufficient showing to overcome this qualified privilege. The work product privilege may be defeated only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery (1) has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the case, and (2) is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. Iowa R.Civ.P. 122(c). In determining whether a sufficient showing has been made in other contexts, we have required the party requesting the documents to make an independent discovery effort to obtain equivalent information. Shook, 497 N.W.2d at 888; Schaffer v. Rogers, 362 N.W.2d 552, 556-57 (Iowa 1985). A mere allegation that the witnesses with equivalent information may be hostile is not a sufficient showing. Schaffer, 362 N.W.2d at 556. The party must interview or depose the witnesses so that any claim of hostility or faulty memory can be substantiated. Shook, 497 N.W.2d at 888; Schaffer, 362 N.W.2d at 556. Here Pickering has not demonstrated any unsuccessful independent effort to obtain the substantial equivalent of the discoverable information in the claim file. Rather, Pickering argues that there is no substantial equivalent to the claim file in the context of a penalty benefits claim. He argues that an insurer's files are unique and that under our prior cases we have summarily concluded that the claimant has a substantial need for such files. We think Pickering reads too much into our cases because we have never squarely addressed the discoverability of an insurer's file compiled after the insured's claim has been denied. [6] There may well be a substantial need for that part of the file predating the denial. Those documents are unique in that they are a contemporaneous recording of the insurer's investigation and reasoning leading to the denial. Tackett v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 653 A.2d 254, 263 (Del.1995); APL Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Sur. Co., 91 F.R.D. 10, 14 (D.Md.1980). However, the uniqueness of the insurer's file is not so apparent once the insured's claim has been denied. See Pete Rinaldi's Fast Foods, Inc. v. Great Am. Ins. Cos., 123 F.R.D. 198, 204 (M.D.N.C.1988) (refusing to order production of postdenial documents in claim file because predenial materials should constitute all of the information sufficient for plaintiff to prove its claim). Anything in the file after that decision has been made is no different from the file of any other adversary who begins to document and analyze his position in anticipation that he may be sued. In the case of any other party, we require the showing discussed above and set forth in Shook. We see no reason that the insurer's file prepared after the claim has been denied should be treated any differently. Kujawa v. Manhattan Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 541 So.2d 1168, 1169 (Fla.1989) (holding that insurer in first-party bad faith action is entitled to the [attorney-client] privilege and [work product] immunity to the same extent as any other litigant). As noted earlier, we need not decide whether Liberty Mutual's file postdating the denial was prepared in anticipation of litigation. Pickering concedes as much. Nevertheless, it is valuable to remind ourselves why the work product privilege was established in the first place to fully appreciate the unfairness of automatically subjecting the entire file of the insurer to discovery whenever the insured sues for bad faith. The seminal Iowa case analyzing the work product privilege as it applies to an insurer's files is Ashmead v. Harris, 336 N.W.2d 197 (Iowa 1983). Ashmead was an action for damages sustained in an automobile accident. Ashmead, 336 N.W.2d at 198. The plaintiff wanted to discover the files of the defendant's insurance company. Id. The only issue presented was whether the documents were gathered in anticipation of litigation. Id. at 199. In fashioning a test for when documents are prepared in anticipation of litigation, we looked to the comments of the federal advisory committee on the federal counterpart to rule 122(c): [T]he requirement of a special showing for discovery of trial preparation materials reflects the view that each side's informal evaluation of its case should be protected, that each side should be encouraged to prepare independently, and that one side should not automatically have the benefit of the detailed preparatory work of the other side. Id. at 200 (quoting 48 F.R.D. 487, 501) (emphasis added). We decided that if the primary motivating purpose in preparing the documents is to aid in possible future litigation, the documents are prepared in anticipation of litigation. [7] Id. at 201. In a later case, not involving an insurer's files, we again found it helpful to focus on the purpose of the work product privilege in deciding its scope: The primary purpose of the work product privilege is to assure that an attorney is not inhibited in his representation of his client by the fear that his files will be open to scrutiny upon demand of an opposing party. Counsel should be allowed to amass data and commit his opinions and thought processes to writing free of the concern that, at some later date, an opposing party may be entitled to secure any relevant work product documents merely on request and use them against his client. Shook, 497 N.W.2d at 888 (quoting In re Murphy, 560 F.2d 326, 334 (8th Cir.1977)) (emphasis added). Of course, the protection of work product given by rule 122(c) extends to documents prepared by a party or any representative of the party, as well as by the party's attorney. Iowa R.Civ.P. 122(c); accord 4 Moore's Federal Practice ¶26.64[3], at 26-416 (1979). Keeping in mind the purpose and scope of the work product privilege, we conclude that a claimant is not entitled to obtain the file of his adversary, the insurer, merely upon request. See State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. LaForet, 591 So.2d 1143, 1144 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1992) (court denied production of claim file in a first-party bad faith case stating, A `showing' is more than a bare assertion; it consists of specific explanations and reasons.); Broussard v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 519 So.2d 136, 136 (La.1988) (insured seeking claim file in first-party bad faith case must make showing required by rule for production of work product materials); Rauch, 849 S.W.2d at 634-35 (because insurer and insured are adversaries whenever insured makes a claim for payment under a policy, insured must show substantial need and inability to obtain substantial equivalent without undue hardship). Documents prepared after the insured's claim has been denied are clearly not a contemporaneous record of events leading to the denial of the insured's claim. After the claim has been denied, the insurer evaluates its action and prepares to defend its decision. Documents prepared during that time are precisely the type of material sought to be protected from discovery by one's adversary. We think an insurer is entitled to the same protection of this material under rule 122(c) as any other party. But, Pickering argues, these documents may contain relevant information, information that will advance his case. Of course that argument could be made by Liberty Mutual with respect to the file of Pickering's attorney just as easily. More to the point, relevancy is not the standard for determining whether work product is discoverable. See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Von Hohenberg, 595 So.2d 303, 304 (Fla.Dist. Ct.App.1992) (holding that even if the material sought is relevant, it may be privileged and beyond permissible discovery; party seeking discovery must meet substantial need/undue hardship test). The fact remains that Liberty Mutual's file compiled after the denial of Pickering's claim is no different and entitled to no less protection than the file of Pickering and his attorney prepared during the same time frame. An insurer, no less than any other party, should be able to prepare its case 'free of concern that, at some later date, an opposing party may be entitled to secure any relevant work product documents merely on request.' See Shook, 497 N.W.2d at 888 (quoting In re Murphy, 560 F.2d at 334). We hold that Pickering could not rely on a mere allegation that he has substantial need of Liberty Mutual's file and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain the substantial equivalent. He had to demonstrate that the information contained in the documents prepared after his claim was denied could not be obtained through a review of the predenial documents already produced by Liberty Mutual, the depositions of the persons responsible for making the denial decision or any other source. [8] In making this demonstration of need, a claimant must focus on the availability from other sources of the facts necessary to establish his claim for penalty benefits. Whether any opinions, conclusions and mental impressions concerning that claim are included in the postdenial file and cannot be obtained elsewhere is not important. That is because in no event are the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation discoverable. [9] APL Corp., 91 F.R.D. at 14; Shook, 497 N.W.2d at 886. Those materials are absolutely immune. Shook, 497 N.W.2d at 886. Consequently, the fact that the postdenial file may contain such information is irrelevant to an analysis of the claimant's need for the documents. Because Pickering did not make the showing required by rule 122(c), the deputy industrial commissioner abused his discretion in ordering the production of the claim file postdating Liberty Mutual's denial of Pickering's claim.