Ex parte State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, No. SC-2025-0918, 2026 WL 2362189 (Ala. Aug. 14, 2026). The Court (Mendheim, J., and Stewart, C.J., and Sellers and McCool, JJ., concur; Cook, J., concurs in part and concurs in the result, with opinion; Bryan, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion; Parker, J., concurs in the result and dissents in part, with opinion; Shaw, J., dissents, with opinion, which Wise, J., joins) grants the petition for writ of mandamus in part and denies the petition in part, holding Ala. R. Civ. P. 26 permits the inclusion of limiting sharing provisions in protective orders.
In January 2024, James and Krystina Foors of Union Springs, Alabama, timely filed a homeowners’ insurance claim with State Farm following a storm which damaged their roof. Id. at *1. The Foors filed a “Motion for Entry of Sharing Protective Order,” seeking a protective order including a sharing provision wherein discovery from other bad faith cases brought against State Farm for roof damage claims could be used in the underlying case. State Farm filed an opposition to the Motion for Entry of Sharing Protective Order arguing that “[n]o Alabama court has ever permitted a sharing provision in any bad faith insurance litigation, much less one as sweeping as this,” and that issuance of the order would risk exposure of proprietary information. Id. at *2. State Farm’s proposed protective order did not include a sharing provision, stated that proprietary information may only be disclosed to “the Alabama Department of Insurance, law enforcement officers, and/or other government agencies, as permitted or required by applicable state and federal law,” and asserted that Foors’ counsel had previously agreed to this language in other cases. Id. at *3. The circuit court held a hearing on the motions and entered a protective order including sharing provisions, and State Farm filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the circuit court to vacate its order and enter a protective order without sharing provisions. Id. at *5.
The Court holds that “there is nothing inherently wrong with the inclusion of a sharing provision in a protective order.” Id. at *21. “[I]n promoting the idea that Rule 26 prohibits the dissemination of information obtained in discovery beyond the specific case in which the information is obtained, State Farm and its amici fail to correctly interpret the rule's language, bypass overwhelming legal authority concerning the nature of discovery, and contradict other statements in their own briefs. First, when Rule 26(b)(1) states that ‘[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is ... relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action ... and ... proportional to the needs of the case,’ it is clearly referring to what information may be ‘obtain[ed in] discovery,’ not whatever a party might do with that information once it is obtained. There is a distinct difference between what information a party is entitled to receive in discovery and what a party is entitled to do with that information once it is received. The language in Rule 26(b)(1) concerns the former, not the latter.” Id. at *8.
The Court further explains that “it is well-established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public.” Id. at *9 (citations omitted). In short, Ala. R. Civ. P. 26 “does not prohibit the dissemination of discovery materials outside of the specific case in which the information is obtained.” Id. at *10.
However, the Court explains the protective order must be modified to ensure the information is not shared in a way that harms State Farm. Id. at *21. The Court therefore directs the circuit court to list the specific cases in which the Foors’ counsel are permitted to use the discovery materials produced by State Farm. Id. The Court further directs the circuit court to include a provision binding signatories to the Bullock Circuit Court for enforcement of the terms. Id. at *17. Finally, the Court directs the circuit court to add a provision clarifying that the confidential information may be used in each of the cases listed in the protective order until each respective case ends, upon which the information must be returned or destroyed. Id. at *18.