Beth Johnson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company

• Court: District Court, E.D. Washington
• Decided: December 15, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-00151
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 2 Dec 15, 2025

3 SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 6 BETH JOHNSON, an individual, 7 Plaintiff, No. 2:25-CV-00151-RLP

8 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL IN PART AND 9 STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY DENYING IN PART AND COMPANY, a foreign insurance GRANTING MOTION FOR 10 corporation, PROTECTIVE ORDER IN PART 11 Defendant. 12 Before the Court are Plaintiff Beth Johnson’s Motion to Compel, ECF No. 13 15, and Defendant State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Motion for Protective 14 Order, ECF No. 22. Plaintiff is represented by Isaac Ruiz, Isaac Castaneda, and 15 Kathryn Knudsen. Defendant is represented by Shaizah Hasan and Molly Eckman. 16 The motions were heard without oral argument. 17 This discovery dispute involves four categories of information: (1) State 18 Farm’s claims handling policies and guidelines; (2) adjuster training and 19 performance reviews; (3) advertising materials; and (4) claims department bonus 20 and financial information. For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the 1 foregoing are discoverable categories of information, but that limitations are 2 appropriate. Good cause exists to grant a protective order with revisions. 3 FACTS/BACKGROUND

4 Plaintiff Beth Johnson had a homeowner insurance policy with State Farm, 5 effective from June 10, 2023 through June 10, 2024. ECF No. 20, ¶2. She 6 submitted a claim after suffering residential water damage on April 4, 2024. ECF

7 No. 7, ¶¶8, 13, 15. After State Farm denied her claim, Ms. Johnson filed this 8 lawsuit. She seeks a declaratory judgment and alleging breach of contract; 9 violation of duty of good faith; negligent claims handling; and violations of the 10 Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.090, and the Insurance Fair Conduct Act,

11 RCW 48.30.015. ECF No. 17. 12 On September 15, 2025, Ms. Johnson sent State Farm her first 13 interrogatories and requests for production. ECF No. 16, ¶3, Exh. C. State Farm

14 responded to the request on October 17, 2025, but withheld production of certain 15 categories of evidence, including 1) claims handling policies and guidelines; 2) 16 adjuster training and performance materials; 3) advertising material; and 4) claim 17 department bonus and financial information. ECF No. 16, Exh. D. State Farm’s

18 counsel agreed that some of the requested materials would be produced subject to a 19 protective order. Id. at Exh. E, 2–6. 20 The parties filed a proposed protective order along with their joint status 1 report and discovery plan. ECF No. 11. On October 17, 2025, the Court issued an 2 order denying the parties requested protective order as overbroad and 3 unaccompanied by a requisite showing of harm. See ECF No. 14 at 3.

4 The parties subsequently conferred regarding outstanding discovery. State 5 Farm indicated it would be supplementing its responses, but would also request a 6 protective order. Ms. Johnson filed a motion to compel on November 10, 2025.

7 ECF No. 15. State Farm filed a Motion for Protective Order on November 24, 8 2025. ECF No. 22. 9 ANALYSIS 10 1. Scope of Discovery

11 Under FRCP 26(b)(1) “[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any 12 nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense. … Relevant 13 information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably

14 calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” 15 While discovery is broad, it is not boundless. “Discovery of matter not 16 ‘reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence’ is not 17 within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1).” Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S.

18 340, 351 n.12, 98 S.Ct. 2380 (1978). 19 // 20 // 1 The Court finds that Ms. Johnson is entitled to the following:1 2 Claims handling policies and guidelines: State Farm shall produce materials 3 pertinent to the State of Washington that were in place from the time of Ms.

4 Johnson’s claim to the present. State Farm must also produce any additional claims 5 handling materials relied upon by individuals responsible for investigation, 6 evaluation, and handling of Ms. Johnson’s claim. Ms. Johnson has not presented

7 any non-speculative theory that materials outside this scope would lead to the 8 discovery of admissible evidence. 9 Adjuster training and performance reviews and claim department bonus and 10 financial information: State Farm shall produce “(1) the criteria by which the

11 performance of any and all persons responsible for investigation, evaluation and 12 handling of Plaintiffs’ claim was evaluated; (2) the evaluations or reviews, 13

1The issue of whether the disclosed materials shall be subject to a protective 14 order is a separate issue, addressed below. The Court declines to deny Ms. 15 Johnson’s motion based on an alleged failure to meet the conferral requirement 16 contemplated by FRCP 37(a)(1) and LCR 27. The parties have conferred on 17 discovery to at least a limited extent. Although Ms. Johnson seemingly could have 18 allowed State Farm additional time before filing her motion, the Court determines 19 that the interests of justice will best be met by addressing the merits of the parties’ 20 dispute at this time. 1 including any disciplinary action, of any and all persons responsible for 2 investigation, evaluation and handling of the claim; (3) the compensation for any 3 and all persons responsible for investigation, evaluation and handling of the claim,

4 including but not limited to the criteria by which bonus or other special or 5 incentive compensation is determined; (4) the training of any and all persons 6 responsible for investigation, evaluation and handling of Plaintiffs’ claim.” Knaack

7 v. Allied World Specialty Ins. Co., 2024 WL 1049819, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 11, 8 2024). State Farm shall also produce its annual financial statements from 2023 9 until present. 10 Ms. Johnson has not presented any non-speculative theory that evidence

11 pertaining to a broader scope of materials would lead to the discovery of 12 admissible evidence. 13 Advertising materials: State Farm shall produce marketing or advertising

14 documents that Ms. Johnson may have received from either State Farm or a State 15 Farm contractor regarding State Farm’s homeowner policy from December, 2022 16 (six months before the policy date) until June 10, 2024 (the date of loss). Ms. 17 Johnson has not presented any non-speculative theory that evidence pertaining to a

18 broader scope of materials would lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 19 // 20 // 1 2. Protective Order 2 Discoverable information is “presumptively public.” Fierro Cordero v. 3 Stemilt AG Services LLC, 142 F.4th 1201, 1207 (9th Cir. 2025), quoting San Jose

4 Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.-N. Dist. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th 5 Cir. 1999). Nevertheless, in order to “protect a party or person from annoyance, 6 embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense,” the Court can issue a

7 protective order, restricting the public dissemination of discovery materials. FRCP 8 26(c)(1). A party seeking a protective order has the burden of establishing good 9 cause in the form of harm that would arise from public disclosure. Fierro Cordero, 10 142 F.4th at 1207. If the Court finds a party has satisfied this initial burden, the

11 Court must balance the public and private interests and determine whether less 12 restrictive alternatives, such as redaction, can ameliorate concerns of harm. In re 13 Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 661 F.3d 417, 425 (9th Cir. 2011).

14 Claims handling policies and guidelines: Defendants have shown sufficient 15 evidence that its Operating Guidelines (OGs), Standard Claims Processes (SPCs), 16 and Jurisdictional Records (JRs) qualify as trade secrets or confidential research, 17 development, or commercial information. State Farm has shown that it expends

18 significant time and resources into independently developing these materials. See 19 ECF Nos. 23, ⁋8; 24, ⁋ 8; 25, ¶¶ 11, 19, 23-24, 26. The materials derive their value 20 from their confidentiality. See ECF Nos. 23, ⁋⁋6, 8, 10; 24, ⁋ 8; 25, ⁋⁋30-31. State 1 Farm’s witnesses maintain that disclosure of the materials would place State Farm 2 at a competitive or business disadvantage. ECF Nos. 23, ⁋10; 24, ⁋⁋10-11; 25, 3 ⁋⁋27, 30-31. And State Farm has taken steps to ensure its OGs remain confidential

4 by requiring its employees to annually agree to keep its processes and policies 5 private and confidential. ECF Nos. 23, ⁋⁋9, 12; 24, ⁋⁋13-16; 25, ¶¶34-42. 6 Federal courts in this circuit have recognized that, in this circumstance, there

7 is good cause for issuance of a protective order. See, e.g., Haldiman v Cont’l Cas. 8 Co., 2014 WL 584305 at *3 (D. Ariz. Feb. 13, 2014); Takata v Hartford, 283 9 F.R.D. 617, 621 (E.D. Wash. 2012). The value of these materials is derived 10 precisely from the fact that the information contained therein is not public. Thus,

11 the private interests in preventing disclosure are strong. Redaction of discrete 12 information from the materials at issue does not appear feasible. The Court is 13 therefore satisfied that the materials should be provided pursuant to a protective

14 order that prohibits further dissemination of the materials to persons outside the 15 current litigation. 16 Ms. Johnson argues State Farm cannot claim confidentiality because at least 17 some of its records have become a part of the public domain during past litigation.

18 This argument is persuasive only in part. To the extent a specific document is 19 already part of the public domain, the Court agrees with Ms. Johnson that 20 protection is unwarranted. But the past disclosure of discrete documents does not 1 justify stripping entire categories of materials from protection. Should Ms. Johnson 2 demonstrate that a particular document is already part of the public domain, the 3 Court will entertain a motion to lift the protective order as to that document.

4 Otherwise, the protective order applies. 5 Personnel and performance files: Personnel information is often sensitive 6 and must be handled with care. See Reagan-Touhy v. Walgreen Co., 526 F.3d 641,

7 648 (10th Cir. 2008). Particularly because of the potential for dissemination over 8 the internet, public access to an employee’s personal, health, or family information 9 can subject the employee to identity theft, harassment, or malicious disinformation. 10 Given the nature of this case, there is no public interest in personal employee

11 information that may be disclosed during discovery. Thus, discovery in this case 12 shall be redacted to eliminate irrelevant or personally identifying information such 13 as: social security numbers, dates of birth, tax information, home addresses, family

14 member information, and health care or reasonable accommodation information. In 15 addition, to the extent private employee information is discoverable and does not 16 meet the aforementioned criteria for redaction, it shall be restricted to 17 dissemination to persons involved in the current litigation. Private employee

18 information is defined to include compensation details and employee performance 19 or evaluation materials. 20 // 1 3. Scope of Protective Order 2 This protective order is limited to materials exchanged during discovery; it 3 does not automatically extend to materials filed with the Court. “When discovery

4 material is filed with the court … its status changes” and the material becomes a 5 judicial record. Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th 6 Cir. 2003). The Ninth Circuit recognizes “a strong presumption in favor of access

7 to court records.” Id. When it comes to non-dispositive motions, the existence of a 8 protective order will justify sealing discovery materials that are subject to the 9 order. Id. But when it comes to dispositive motions or other motions touching on 10 the merits of the case, a party seeking protection must establish reasons for sealing

11 the materials. See id. at 1135-38. 12 Given the different standards governing the fruits of discovery and judicial 13 records filed in relation to dispositive or quasi-dispositive motions, the Court will

14 not automatically order that discovery materials be filed under seal simply because 15 they are subject to a protective order. To streamline litigation, the Court directs the 16 following process: Documents that are subject to the protective order which are 17 filed pursuant to a dispositive motion must initially be filed under seal. The seal

18 will be removed after 14 days unless a motion is filed requesting to seal the 19 documents from public disclosure based on compelling circumstances. If a motion 20 to seal is filed, the question of whether the document will remain subject to sealing will be determined by Court order. 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 3 1. Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, ECF No. 15, is GRANTED in part DENIED in part as set forth herein. 5 2. State Farm’s Motion for Protective Order, ECF No. 22, is 6|| GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth herein. 7 3. Within 14 days of the date of this Order, the parties shall file a 8|| proposed protective order that meets the terms of this Order. 9 4. State Farm shall provide the above-directed responses no later than 10|| three days after the Court’s entry of a protective order. State Farm may provide responses at an earlier date should the parties reach a confidentiality agreement. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is hereby directed to 13}| enter this Order and to provide copies to counsel. 14 DATED December 15, 2025. 15 16 ~ REBECCA L. PENNELL United States District Judge 17 18 19 20

ORDER RE MOTION TO COMPEL AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ADIATD In