A’SHAUN THOMPSON v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY

E.D. Missouri

A’SHAUN THOMPSON v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY

DecidedOctober 24, 2025

Docket4:24-cv-01639

StatusUnknown

This text of A’SHAUN THOMPSON v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY (A’SHAUN THOMPSON v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A’SHAUN THOMPSON v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, (E.D. Mo. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

A’SHAUN THOMPSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-01639-MTS ) STATE FARM FIRE AND ) CASUALTY COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to the Court’s initial informal process for raising discovery disputes, see Doc. [20] ¶ (I)(3)(h); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(B)(v), the parties brought to the Court a disagreement over attorney-client privilege and work product redactions that Defendant had made in discovery responses to Plaintiff. After consulting with the parties, the Court reviewed the redacted portions in camera, aided by Defendant’s privilege log and a letter brief from Plaintiff. After an attentive review, the Court finds nearly all challenged redactions were appropriate. The specific information related to Defendant’s loss reserve are protected work product. See Jo Ann Howard & Assocs., P.C. v. Cassity, 4:09-cv-1252-ERW, 2018 WL 2762266, at *7 (E.D. Mo. June 8, 2018); accord Meighan v. TransGuard Ins. Co. of Am., 298 F.R.D. 436, 444–45 (N.D. Iowa 2014). The remaining contested portions are communications between Defendant and its coverage counsel undertaken for the specific purpose of obtaining legal advice; information detailing that advice or prepared to obtain the advice; or are work product prepared after the anticipation of litigation began. They therefore are properly redacted.” For purposes of the record, the Court will have the Clerk attach to this Memorandum Opinion a copy of the privilege log and of Plaintiffs letter brief. Dated this 24th day of October 2025. ful T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

There are some redactions that pertain to the identity of Defendant’s attorneys or payments Defendant made to them. The Court doubts these redactions were proper. Cf In re Grand Jury Proc. (85 Misc. 140), 791 F.2d 663, 665 (8th Cir. 1986) (“The identity of one’s client usually falls outside the scope of the attorney-client privilege.”); Tipton v. Barton, 747 S.W.2d 325, 332 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988) (finding that attorney billing statements do not fall within the attorney- client privilege). Nevertheless, the Court will not require Defendant to un-redact this information and provide it to Plaintiff at this time because the Court finds that the information is outside the scope of discovery. See Sampson v. Schenck, 8:07-cv-0155-TDT, 2009 WL 484224, at *3 (D. Neb. Feb. 23, 2009) (noting a court need not reach the issue of privilege when the information sought is not discoverable under Rule 26); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. -2.-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

A’SHAUN THOMPSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:24-cv-01639-MTS ) STATE FARM FIRE AND ) CASUALTY COMPANY, ) ) Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Pursuant to the Court’s initial informal process for raising discovery disputes, see Doc. [20] ¶ (I)(3)(h); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(3)(B)(v), the parties brought to the Court a disagreement over attorney-client privilege and work product redactions that Defendant had made in discovery responses to Plaintiff. After consulting with the parties, the Court reviewed the redacted portions in camera, aided by Defendant’s privilege log and a letter brief from Plaintiff. After an attentive review, the Court finds nearly all challenged redactions were appropriate. The specific information related to Defendant’s loss reserve are protected work product. See Jo Ann Howard & Assocs., P.C. v. Cassity, 4:09-cv-1252-ERW, 2018 WL 2762266, at *7 (E.D. Mo. June 8, 2018); accord Meighan v. TransGuard Ins. Co. of Am., 298 F.R.D. 436, 444–45 (N.D. Iowa 2014). The remaining contested portions are communications between Defendant and its coverage counsel undertaken for the specific purpose of obtaining legal advice; information detailing that advice or prepared to obtain the advice; or are work product prepared after the anticipation of litigation began. They therefore are properly redacted.” For purposes of the record, the Court will have the Clerk attach to this Memorandum Opinion a copy of the privilege log and of Plaintiffs letter brief. Dated this 24th day of October 2025. ful T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

There are some redactions that pertain to the identity of Defendant’s attorneys or payments Defendant made to them. The Court doubts these redactions were proper. Cf In re Grand Jury Proc. (85 Misc. 140), 791 F.2d 663, 665 (8th Cir. 1986) (“The identity of one’s client usually falls outside the scope of the attorney-client privilege.”); Tipton v. Barton, 747 S.W.2d 325, 332 (Mo. Ct. App. 1988) (finding that attorney billing statements do not fall within the attorney- client privilege). Nevertheless, the Court will not require Defendant to un-redact this information and provide it to Plaintiff at this time because the Court finds that the information is outside the scope of discovery. See Sampson v. Schenck, 8:07-cv-0155-TDT, 2009 WL 484224, at *3 (D. Neb. Feb. 23, 2009) (noting a court need not reach the issue of privilege when the information sought is not discoverable under Rule 26); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. -2.-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

A’SHAUN THOMPSON v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ashaun-thompson-v-state-farm-fire-and-casualty-company-moed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack