Opinion ID: 2633411
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: peace letter

Text: ¶ 37 Green argues the trial court erred in wrongfully denying the production of a letter from State Farm to Louder regarding this case. Because trial courts have broad discretion in matters of discovery, this issue is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Askew v. Hardman, 918 P.2d 469, 472 (Utah 1996). Consequently, [a]n appellate court will not find abuse of discretion absent an erroneous conclusion of law or where there is no evidentiary basis for the trial court's ruling. Id. ¶ 38 Two weeks before trial, Green filed a motion to compel the production of a letter [14] from State Farm to Louder in which State Farm allegedly promised to pay any damages assessed personally against Louder in this matter. Green argued that because State Farm had prepared the letter it was not covered by the attorney-client privilege. In response, Louder argued that documents prepared in anticipation of litigation by an insurer are protected by the work-product privilege under Askew v. Hardman, 918 P.2d 469 (Utah 1996). On the first day of trial, the court heard arguments, reviewed a copy of the letter, and denied Green's request, finding that the letter was covered by the work-product privilege. ¶ 39 The applicable law governing discovery of documents is set forth in rule 26(b)(3) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. It states: [A] party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under Subdivision (b)(1) of this rule and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that other party's representative (including the party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of the case and that the party is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. (emphasis added). In Askew, we held that rule [26] acknowledges that materials prepared by a party's insurance company (insurer) are protected from discovery if they are prepared in anticipation of litigation. 918 P.2d at 473. Contrary to Green's argument, rule 26(b)(3) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure does not require that the materials be prepared by an attorney to qualify for such protection. Id. Because State Farm clearly qualifies as an insurer under the rule, the protection under the work-product privilege is triggered and the trial court did not err by denying Green access to the letter.