Lee v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

Full title: YOON BOON LEE, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE…

Court: United States District Court, D. Colorado

Date published: Jun 4, 2007

Civil Action No.: 02-cv-1153-JLK-PAC (D. Colo. Jun. 4, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Action No.: 02-cv-1153-JLK-PAC.

June 4, 2007

SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

SHELLEY B. DON, Special Master

This matter is before the Special Master pursuant to Judge Kane's Orders of January 20, 2006 and February 13, 2006. The Special Master issues his Report and Recommendations as follow:

I. INTRODUCTION

This litigation involves a dispute regarding the conduct of Defendant State Farm Insurance Company ("State Farm") in attempting to avoid coverage for liability for personal injuries caused by a State Farm insured in an automobile accident. Plaintiff Yoon Boon Lee ("Lee"), who was injured in the accident, asserts claims against State Farm for fraud, abuse of process, civil conspiracy and outrageous conduct and seeks an award of both compensatory and exemplary damages.

The immediate issues that require resolution arise from State Farm's claims of attorneyclient privilege and attorney work product protection to prevent disclosure to Lee of certain documents in discovery. On January 20, 2006, the Honorable John L. Kane entered an Order appointing the undersigned as Special Master. The Order Appointing Special Master states that the assigned task is as follows:

. . . [T]o conduct an in camera review of the documents that are the subject of Lee's September 19, 2005 Motion to Compel. Pursuant to his appointment, the Special Master is authorized to review claims of privilege, attorney work product and to make findings and recommendations to the Court in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 53(f). The Special Master shall include in his findings and recommendation consideration of all applicable rules of professional responsibility adopted by this Court.

Order Appointing Special Master at 1.

The Special Master has reviewed relevant portions of the case file and all of the briefing and case materials that have been presented by the parties, including the depositions of key witnesses and the pertinent deposition exhibits, and State Farm's privilege log and all of the documents in State Farm's in camera submission. Based on that review, the Special Master concludes that the principal issues to be addressed are:

1) whether the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applies;

2) whether the crime-fraud exception extends to documents that were prepared after this litigation was filed, under Lee's theory that the prosecution of this action has been a series of continuing acts in the furtherance of a conspiracy that was devised by State Farm and its attorneys to fraudulently avoid paying damages for injuries suffered by Lee that were caused by State Farm's insured;

3) whether any other grounds exist to avoid or defeat State Farm's claims of attorneyclient privilege or attorney work product protection; and

4) separate and apart from the considerations of attorney-client privilege or work product, whether there are any substantial questions regarding possible violations of any mandatory provisions of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Special Master finds and concludes that the crime-fraud exception applies and that it extends to documents that were prepared after this litigation was filed. At the outset, the Special Master notes that, as set forth in greater detail in the Conclusions of Law below, the quantum of proof necessary for the application of the crime-fraud exception is a "prima facie showing that the exception applies to each document before the document is actually stripped of its privilege. . . ." A. v. District Court, 191 Colo. 10, 550 P.2d 315, 326 (1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1040 (1977). Any contested findings in the Findings of Fact below are based on the Special Master's review of the record and his determination that Lee has made a prima facie showing to establish these facts that support the application of the crime-fraud exception. Having made the determination that the crime-fraud exception applies, the Special Master finds and concludes, based on a page-by page review of every document in the in camera submission, that the crime-fraud exception applies to some but not all of the documents for which privilege and/or work product protection have been claimed. The Special Master has set forth his specific recommendations as to each document in the chart attached as Exhibit 1, adding a column to State Farm's privilege log with the Special Master's recommendations.

In addition to the crime-fraud exception, Lee challenges the claims of privilege and work product based on the "at issue" waiver doctrine. Further, the Special Master has considered whether State Farm has either failed to establish its claims of privilege or work product or waived its claims by failing to provide the information necessary to support each claim on a privilege log that complies with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A). The Special Master has considered these issues in the context of the legal framework below and has set forth his specific recommendations as to each document in the chart attached as Exhibit 1.

The Court's instruction that the Special Master must consider the conduct in this case under all applicable rules of professional responsibility has not affected the Special Master's determination of the privilege and work product issues that have been addressed. See Preamble to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct ("these Rules are not intended to govern or affect judicial application of either the attorney-client or work product privilege."). These ethical considerations are for a different purpose than assessing the privilege and work product claims, and they have been undertaken on a different standard of review than the prima facie showing to establish the crime-fraud exception to the privilege. The Special Master views his limited task to be that of identifying any provisions of the Colorado Rules of Professional Responsibility with respect to which, in the judgment of the Special Master, there may be a "substantial question" as to whether the conduct at issue may have violated mandatory professional responsibilities. The purpose of this inquiry is not to make findings or conclusions, but rather, it is to aid the Court in the determination of whether any ethical issues warrant further action.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

On March 4, 1998, Larry Thorne ("Thorne"), a State Farm insured, was the driver of an automobile that struck Lee, a pedestrian crossing an intersection with the light. Lee sustained serious injuries including a right proximal humerus fracture, a right ankle fracture, a right rotator cuff tear, scrapes and bruises and an L5 compression fracture. She also sustained damage to her mouth and teeth. She was subsequently diagnosed with post-traumatic vision syndrome, closed head injury and depression.

The accident investigation report disclosed that Thorne had used marijuana shortly before the accident. He was ticketed for vehicular assault, driving under the influence and careless driving, and he was also charged with possession of marijuana.

At the time of the accident, Thorne's insurance policy with State Farm provided liability coverage in the amount of $100,000. On March 17, 1998, before instituting suit, Mr. Richard Kaudy ("Kaudy"), who was counsel for Lee, made a time-limited demand for a policy limit settlement on State Farm. At or about the time that Kaudy made this demand, State Farm opened a claim file and initiated a claim log. However, State Farm did not convey to or inform Thorne of the demand. When State Farm failed to respond within the established deadline the demand was withdrawn and litigation ensued.

On April 23, 1998, Kaudy filed a complaint in the Arapahoe County District Court, asserting a negligence claim for Lee against Thorne and seeking exemplary damages. That civil action, with the case caption Yoon Boon Lee v. Larry Thorne, Case No. 98CV1760, is hereinafter referenced as the "underlying case" or the "state court case."

After the complaint was filed, State Farm retained Mr. John Rodman ("Rodman") as counsel for its insured. The Special Master finds that Rodman is a seasoned insurance attorney who is intimately familiar with the complex coverage issues that were presented in this case. At the time of his retention on this matter, Rodman had a long history with State Farm. In the preceding eight years, State Farm had paid Rodman $6,107,937.67 in relation to 354 claims and 2,589 transactions for his work defending State Farm insureds and representing State Farm directly.

Rodman filed an answer on behalf of Thorne in which the defendant denied liability and pled the affirmative defense of comparative negligence. Although in his discovery deposition Thorne denied the use of marijuana was a cause of the accident, the fact of his use of marijuana significantly increased his risk of liability for exemplary damages. This risk of liability personally exposed Thorne because State Farm's insurance policy provided no coverage for exemplary damages.

The Special Master finds that Rodman was fully apprised, early on, of a conflict between the interests of State Farm and Thorne. On July 29, 1999, Kaudy wrote a letter to Rodman, setting forth in detail his analysis of the Thorne position vis a vis State Farm in view of its failure to settle the case for the policy limit demand. This letter included Kaudy's suggestion that Thorne may have a remedy against State Farm as a result of State Farm's alleged bad faith, and that this remedy could provide a means by which Thorne could avoid personal financial exposure from compensatory damages in excess of the policy limit. Further, in this letter Kaudy proposed that Lee would withdraw her claim for exemplary damages in exchange for Thorne's stipulation to liability, and he related that a State Farm adjuster had stated that she saw no financial advantage to Thorne in this proposal, even though it would have relieved him of his personal exposure to exemplary damages.

On March 6, 2002, Kaudy initiated discussions with Rodman to explore the possibility of entering into a stipulation to liability and the amount of damages, with an assignment to Lee of Thorne's rights to coverage under the insurance policy. This agreement is described herein as the "Bashor" agreement, shorthand for the case of Northland Ins.Co. v. Bashor,177 Colo. 463, 494 P.2d 1292 (Colo. 1972).¹

1 The facts in Northland Ins.Co. v. Bashor involved an assignment of rights post-judgment. Here the agreement was made before trial with the expectation that the entry of any judgment would be based on a stipulation between the parties as to both liability and damages. The distinction can be significant as it relates to the enforceability of the agreement. See Ross v. Old Republic Ins. Co. 134 P.3d 505, 511 (Colo.App. 2006) (a pre-judgment Bashor is not a valid Bashor agreement), cert. granted, (Colo. Oct 16, 2006) (The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari on several issues including: "Whether court of appeals' holding that the settlement agreement was not a valid Bashor agreement conflicts with the supreme court's decision in Northland Insurance Company v. Bashor?"

On March 11, 2002, Rodman forwarded to State Farm a copy of the draft Bashor agreement sent to him by Kaudy. There is no dispute that Rodman had discussions regarding the Bashor agreement with Mr. Steven Baird ("Baird"), the State Farm "Team Manager" assigned to the case. However, the State Farm claim log that had been kept since Kaudy had made the pre-complaint demand contains no detailed notes or records of the discussions between Baird and Rodman relating to the proposed Bashor agreement, either as to the terms of the agreement being discussed or as to Baird's reaction and discussions with others in the State Farm organization. The failure to make entries regarding these communications of critical information contrasts conspicuously with the rest of the log which otherwise contains extensive entries regarding the various case activities. The Special Master finds that the failure to maintain its claims log under these circumstances where State Farm's routine practice was to make entries reflecting these communications gives rise to an inference that this failure was deliberate and intentional to avoid the creation of records that would have been unfavorable to State Farm.²

2 See e.g. Broccoli v. Echostar Communications Corp., 229 F.R.D. 506, 511 (D. Md. 2005) ("The evidence of a regular policy at EchoStar of `deep-sixing' nettlesome documents and records (and of management's efforts to avoid their creation in the first instance) is overwhelming. . . . EchoStar clearly acted in bad faith.").

On March 21, 2002, State Farm retained the services of the law firm of Seaman, Giometti Murphy, P.C. As stated in the engagement letter, this firm was hired "to represent State Farm and provide legal advice with respect to its rights and obligations in connection with the allegations of bad faith and the proposed `Bashor' agreement." Both Mr. Gregory Giometti (hereinafter "Giometti") and Mr. Thomas Seaman (hereinafter "Seaman") provided legal services to State Farm in connection with this matter.

On March 28, 2002, Giometti performed research described in his billing as: "Research Re: Whether Insured Entering into Pre-judgment Agreement with Injured Plaintiff for Assignment of Bad Faith Claim Against Insurer Constitutes Failure to Cooperate under Policy."

On March 29, 2002, Giometti sent to Baird, by facsimile, a copy of Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Company, 27 Cal.4th 718, 41 P.3d 128, 117 Cal. Rptr. 2d 318 (Cal. 2002), a California case holding that a stipulation between parties to an entry of judgment containing an agreed amount of money as damages would not be binding on an insurer not a party to the stipulation.

On March 30, 2002, Rodman sent a letter to Thorne enclosing a copy of the proposed Bashor agreement. He stated in this letter,inter alia, that "State Farm has had an opportunity to review the agreement. . . ." There is no dispute that Thorne agreed to this Bashor proposal on the advice of Rodman, believing that he (Thorne) was cooperating with a strategy that had been approved by State Farm. It is further undisputed that Rodman did not advise Thorne of any potential consequences if State Farm asserted that the Bashor violated the cooperation clause in the State Farm policy.

On April 2, 2002, Baird forwarded a letter to Rodman "attach[ing] the excess assurance protection ("EAP") letter we discussed on March 28, 2002" and "requesting [Rodman] provide a copy to Mr. Thorne." The EAP letter stated State Farm's intention to remove the policy's limits of $100,000.00 for compensatory damages and further provided:

In exchange for our promise to protect you from any compensatory damage award, you must comply with the cooperation clause of your policy and fulfill all policy duties and conditions throughout the entire claims process.

The EAP letter contained no explanation of the circumstances under which the cooperation clause might come into play and no explanation of how entering into the Bashor agreement might violate this provision. The April 2, 2002 cover letter from Baird to Rodman that accompanied the EAP letter acknowledged that State Farm had been informed of the proposed Bashor but it did not disclose State Farm's position regarding its impact on the cooperation clause. That letter contained the following language:

. . . I would like to clarify that although you have sent me copies of Mr. Thorne's proposed agreement with Ms. Lee, that State Farm is not offering any type of input on the content of the agreement, and is not offering any advice or direction on whether Mr. Thorne should sign the agreement. Please call me if you have any questions.

The Special Master finds that when Baird sent the EAP letter to Rodman, Baird had full knowledge of the negotiations relating to the Bashor, and he knew that State Farm would take the position that the Bashor violated the cooperation clause in Thorne's policy under the reasoning of Hamilton v. Maryland Casualty Company. In making this finding, the Special Master notes that Baird had requested and received from Giometti editorial changes to both the EAP letter and the cover letter before sending them to Rodman.

The Special Master further finds that State Farm's position that the Bashor would violate the cooperation clause in Thorne's policy was a material fact that should have been disclosed to Thorne and that these letters were intentionally drafted to conceal that material fact from Thorne.

The Special Master further finds that, based on the facts and circumstances and Rodman's previous experience representing State Farm, Rodman knew, when he received the EAP letter and the cover letter, that State Farm would take the position that the Bashor violated the cooperation clause. Even if Rodman did not have actual knowledge of this fact, he had a duty to confirm State Farm's position regarding the effect of the Bashor on the cooperation clause to be able to properly advise Thorne.³

3 Further, applying the standard of care in Colorado, an attorney owes a duty to his client to employ that degree of knowledge, skill, and judgment ordinarily possessed by members of the legal profession in carrying out services for his client. One of these obligations is anticipating reasonably foreseeable risks. Temple Hoyne Buell Foundation v. Holland Hart 851 P.2d 192, 198 (Colo.App. 1992).

The Special Master further finds that the EAP letter was a material fact that should have been disclosed to Kaudy during the negotiations and communications regarding the proposed Bashor agreement. There is no dispute that after his receipt of the EAP letter, Rodman did not disclose the EAP letter to Kaudy or otherwise inform him that State Farm had lifted the policy limit as to compensatory damages.

On April 4, 2002, Giometti provided a twenty-nine page opinion letter to State Farm analyzing three issues: (1) whether the pre-judgment assignment of Thorne's bad faith claim to Lee would be binding and create a cause of action against State Farm, and, as a corollary issue, whether State Farm, if found to have acted in bad faith, would be bound to pay the amount of the stipulated judgment, $2,500,000, as damages; (2) whether, if Lee and Thorne were to enter into the stipulation, State Farm could deny coverage on the ground that Thorne has breached his duty to cooperate with State Farm; and (3) evaluation of the merits of Lee's contention that State Farm acted in bad faith by failing to accept her time-limited settlement demand. This letter contained the following conclusion:

During our telephone conversations over the past week, we discussed the idea of sending Thorne an excess protection letter. It is my understanding that this has now been done. However, it appears that Thorne may still enter in the stipulated agreement for entry of judgment with a covenant not to execute and an assignment of his `bad faith' claim. If he does enter into such a transaction, it is my opinion that State Farm would not be bound by the amount of the stipulated judgment and that the stipulated judgment and assignment would probably not even give rise to a viable bad faith claim against State Farm. If the agreement were determined to be binding against State Farm, the company would have an argument that Thorne's entry into the agreement resulted in a forfeiture of coverage. Finally, if the assigned bad faith claim against State Farm were allowed to proceed, State Farm would probably prevail on the merits of the case.

The Special Master finds that, if as of the date of this letter State Farm had not already informed Rodman of the positions expressed in this letter, State Farm had a duty to do so before Thorne entered into the Bashor agreement. Further, the Special Master finds that if Rodman had not been actually informed of the positions expressed in this letter before Thorne entered into the Bashor, based on Rodman's experience and the facts and circumstances presented, he either knew or should have known that State Farm would take these positions.

On April 15, 2002, Lee and Thorne entered into the Bashor agreement which was approved as to form by Rodman and Kaudy. In that agreement, the parties stipulated to the entry of judgment in favor of Lee and against Thorne in the amount of $2,500,000.00, with a covenant not to execute on that judgment and an assignment to Lee of Thorne's rights under State Farm policy.

The Bashor agreement contains a representation by Thorne at ¶ 18 that:

. . . Larry D. Thorne wishes to preserve his own financial assets and peace of mind and believes he has cooperated fully with State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company duing the pendency of the Civil Action No. 98 CV 1760 filed against him by Yoon Boon Lee. He has not been provided any information in any way indicating that by entering into this agreement he has failed to cooperate with any insurer, including State Farm Automobile Insurance Company;. . . .

The Special Master finds that, at the time of this agreement, State Farm and its attorneys, Giometti and Seaman, were aware of this representation by Thorne, State Farm's insured, and they were aware that State Farm had already determined that it would take the position that its insured was violating the cooperation clause by entering into this agreement. Under these circumstances, State Farm and its attorneys owed a duty to State Farm's insured to correct his misunderstanding of this material fact before he entered into the agreement. Further, State Farm and its attorneys owed a duty to Lee to correct the false impression created by this material representation and to disclose that State Farm had already determined that it would take the position that its insured was violating the cooperation clause by entering into this agreement.

The Special Master further finds that at the time that Lee and Thorne entered into the Bashor agreement, Rodman knew or should have known that State Farm had already taken the position that this agreement violated the cooperation clause of Thorne's policy. Even if one were to assume arguendo that Rodman did not have actual knowledge of this fact, he was duty-bound, as an attorney representing Thorne, to advise his client that State Farm had not approved this agreement and to evaluate the risks to his client in entering into the Bashor without State Farm's approval. In making this finding, the Special Master notes that Baird testified in deposition that, even though he professed not to recall discussing this issue with Rodman, he believes that "Rodman is a good attorney and would know that that is a possibility."

The Special Master further finds that while Rodman was ostensibly representing Thorne, he was also acting as State Farm's agent in assisting State Farm to orchestrate this transaction in a fashion to conceal material facts from both Thorne and Lee.

In making these findings the Special Master has considered Rodman's billing records that reflect numerous communications with Baird before his client entered into this agreement and, as well, the conspicuous absence in the State Farm claim log of any detailed notes setting forth the discussions that Rodman had with Baird leading up to this agreement.

Further, the Special Master has considered the deposition testimony of Rodman in which he professes a failure to remember any of the substance of his discussions with Baird regarding the proposed Bashor agreement before its execution. The Special Master finds that this testimony lacks credibility.

Further, in making these findings, the Special Master reviewed the two volumes of videotaped deposition of Baird to observe his demeanor at the deposition and to assess his credibility. The Special Master finds that Baird was not credible in testifying that he did not recall the substance of his discussions with Rodman regarding the cooperation clause issues before Thorne and Lee entered into the Bashor agreement.

On June 14, 2002, judgment was entered against Thorne in the underlying action for the stipulated amount, plus interest and costs. Just three days after the entry of judgment, on June 17, 2002, State Farm represented by Seaman and Giometti, filed this current action in this Court, naming both Lee and Thorne as defendants and seeking, inter alia, a declaration of no coverage based on the allegation that Thorne had breached his insurance contract with State Farm by failing to cooperate. The Special Master finds that State Farm's filing of the declaratory judgment action in this Court, just three days after the entry of judgment in the state court action, was the execution of a plan that had been developed by State Farm, Giometti, Seaman and Rodman before Thorne and Lee had entered into the Bashor agreement.

On July 8, 2002, after the filing of the declaratory judgment action, Kaudy learned of the existence of the EAP. Then, on July 22, 2002, Kaudy filed an answer and counterclaim on behalf of Lee in the instant action, and he later filed an amended answer and counterclaim on August 9, 2002.

On July 31, 2002, Mr. Robert Baldwin (Baldwin), representing Thorne, filed an answer and a counterclaim for breach of contract, bad faith, willful and wanton breach of contract, outrageous conduct and violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act.

The materials reviewed by the Special Master include the opinion letter, dated September 24, 2002, authored by Richard Laugesen, Esq. Mr. Laugesen is an expert in the area of insurance law and practice retained on behalf of Lee. In his letter, Mr. Laugesen opined that State Farm became liable for any excess damages of Lee by unreasonably failing to respond to her time-limited demand under the rule of Aetna Casualty Surety Co.v. Kornbluth. 28 Colo. App. 194, 471 P.2d 609 (Colo.App. 1970) (cert. denied), and by doing so without informing Thorne of the opportunity to resolve the matter within liability insurance protection. Mr. Laugesen further opined that:

In April and May of 2002, State Farm committed additional tortious acts. With knowledge that Mr. Thorne was about to enter into an assignment agreement [recognized in Colorado as a `Bashor'-type agreement] and without disclosing to Mrs. Lee's attorney its acknowledgment of responsibility for the entirety of any judgment that might be rendered against Mr. Thorne [as it should have done back in July of 1999], State Farm had the attorney it appointed for Mr. Thorne go through with the assignment agreement with the attorney for Mrs. Lee, including the entry of the stipulated Judgment. State Farm then pounced on Mr. Thorne and Mrs. Lee, claiming that the assignment agreement [which State Farm had through its agent John Rodman induced and encouraged] was a breach of Mr. Thorne's `duty to cooperate,' which allegedly voided any coverage under the State Farm policy. After inducing the agreement State Farm then immediately embroiled Mrs. Lee and Mr. Thorne in expensive federal court litigation.

In my opinion, this latest conduct by State Farm was deceitful, highly inappropriate and compounding of its other previous conduct. Such actions, in my opinion, were and are outrageous within the contemplation of C.J. I. (4^th) 19:2 and 23:1.

* * *

It is further my opinion that the Declaratory Judgment action commenced and being prosecuted by State Farm is baseless and frivolous. It is actually worse than baseless and frivolous in that it is an attempt to use the federal judicial system to assist State Farm in its perpetrating and attempting to benefit from its own deceptive and tortious misconduct.

* * *

In my opinion, all of State Farm's conduct since July of 1999 has been at least `willful and wanton' as defined by C.J. I. (4^th) 9:32 and C.R.S. 13-21-102. It is further my opinion that State Farm's willful and wanton conduct has been continuing since at least July 1999 through the date of this report. As a result, the provisions of C.R.S. 13-21-102(3) pertaining to entitlement to enhanced exemplary damages are applicable.

The Special Master finds Mr. Laugesen to be a highly regarded and well qualified expert in the area of insurance law and practice in Colorado and gives great weight to his opinions expressed in his letter and at his deposition.

The Special Master finds that the conspiracy continued after the filing of the declaratory judgment action. On September 23, 2002, in furtherance of the strategy that had been developed by State Farm and its attorneys, State Farm filed a motion to establish that Thorne had waived his attorney-client privilege with Rodman by filing a counterclaim alleging State Farm's bad faith. State Farm premised its motion on the "at issue" waiver recognized by the Colorado Supreme Court in Mountain States Telephone Telegraph Co. v. DiFede, 780 P. 2d 533 (Colo. 1989).

Both Lee and Thorne responded to the motion with arguments pointing the Court towards a partial waiver resolution, expressing concern that State Farm was attempting to further create a dilemma for Thorne by arguing that he must maintain the privilege to defend the underlying suit and waive it to allow State Farm to defend his claims against it in the declaratory judgment action. The Motion was denied by the Honorable John L. Kane in his Memorandum Opinion and Order, dated November 15, 2002.

On December 30, 2002, as a part of the continuing conspiracy, State Farm filed its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on its declaratory judgment claim. The Special Master finds that by seeking to achieve a determination that the Bashor was not binding on State Farm, when State Farm had orchestrated the events leading to execution of this agreement, this motion was an act in furtherance of the strategy that had been developed by State Farm, Giometti, Seaman and Rodman before Thorne and Lee had entered into the Bashor agreement.

While this litigation proceeded, on July 30, 2002, Kaudy moved to vacate the judgment in the state court case. The implication of the Kaudy motion to vacate was the resurrection of the underlying state court case by Lee against Thorne, in which State Farm would have the responsibility to defend Thorne.

On January 23, 2003, Senior Judge Gaspar F. Perricone, sitting on the state court case by assignment of the Colorado Supreme Court, considered and granted the motion to set aside the judgment, finding that it had been procured by fraud. His findings are central to the issues that the Special Master has been assigned to consider and are, therefore, quoted herein, as follows:

The salient issues which the Court must decide are:

1. The character of the April 2, 2002 letter from the insurer to the Defendant. Is it an offer which requires an acceptance before disclosure pursuant to Colo.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1) is required, or is the letter only a modification of an existing insurance policy?

2. Are the facts contained in the letter material?

3. Was the failure to disclose the letter fraud?

The Court finds that the letter is not an offer that requires an acceptance before it is an agreement between the insurer and the Defendant. On the contrary, the Court finds that the letter is a statement by the insurer that the policy limits have been expanded, and that no additional consideration exists. That portion of the letter that requires the Defendant to comply with the term of the policy is only an affirmation of the Defendant's then-existing contractual duties.

The Court further finds that the information in the letter is material information which would aid the Plaintiff in making an informed decision, and that in equity and good conscience the Defendant knew that without disclosing the letter the Plaintiff would not be sufficiently advised to make an informed decision when she executed the stipulation for entry of judgment.

The Court further finds that the Plaintiff relied on the insurer's statements, which were contrary to the facts as stated in the letter, that the Defendant knew or should have known that without disclosure of the facts contained in the letter that the Plaintiff would not be sufficiently advised to make a knowing decision when she entered into the stipulation for judgment, that the letter was not disclosed, and the Plaintiff was damaged thereby.

Therefore, the Court finds that the failure to disclose was done fraudulently, and the Plaintiff's Motion to Vacate Judgment is granted. The judgment entered on June 14, 2002 be vacated and held for naught.

The Special Master notes that there are substantial questions — not addressed by the parties in their briefing — regarding whether the findings of Judge Perricone are binding in this litigation based on either claim or issue preclusion. The Special Master does not apply either claim or issue preclusion in this Report, leaving those questions to be addressed by the Court if later raised by either of the parties. Nevertheless, the Special Master finds, based on his independent review of the materials presented, that Judge Perricone's findings are persuasive and well-supported, and based on the record provided, the Special Master adopts the same findings as are set forth therein.

Following Judge Perricone's ruling, on February 3, 2003, State Farm moved for the withdrawal of Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment that had been filed on its declaratory judgment claim. Further, Lee moved to amend her counterclaim in this action to add claims of fraud, civil conspiracy and abuse of process.

On April 3, 2003, this Court recognized the changing legal framework of this litigation by ordering the realignment of parties, with Lee and Thorne designated as plaintiffs and State Farm as defendant, and ordered Lee and Thorne to file revised pleadings in the form of complaints no later that April 25, 2003.

On June 26, 2003, Kaudy was granted leave to withdraw as counsel in this case, and attorneys from Barnhart, Ekker McNally, L.L.P., and Paoli and Brown, P.C., entered their appearances for Lee, and, on April 25, 2003, they filed an Amended Complaint on behalf of Lee, alleging fraud, civil conspiracy, abuse of process and outrageous conduct.

On May 5, 2003, Thorne and State Farm stipulated to the dismissal of Thorne's claims against State Farm.

On May 31, 2003 Seaman, Giometti Murphy, P.C., moved to withdraw as counsel for State Farm, and Jon Sands, Esq., entered his appearance.

Proceedings on the Motion to Compel

On July 5, 2005, Lee served written discovery entitled "Supplemental Request for Admissions and Request for Production of Documents to Defendant" seeking communications between State Farm's agents and employees and Seaman. In response to this request, State Farm agreed to produce all communications involving Seaman up to June 17, 2003, the date the declaratory judgment action was filed, but objected to discovery of communications after the filing. State Farm filed a fifty-eight page privilege log, addressing communications between Seaman and State Farm after the filing of the action. Lee moved to compel the production of the post-filing items listed on the privilege log and argues that State Farm should be ordered to produce all communications with Seaman based upon the crime-fraud exception to the privilege and the "at issue" waiver doctrine.

III. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Attorney Client Privilege and the Crime-Fraud Exception

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, in this diversity case privilege is governed by state law. In Colorado, the attorney-client privilege is codified in C.R.S. § 13-90-107(1)(b) as follows:

An attorney shall not be examined without the consent of his client as to any communication made by the client to him or his advice given thereon in the course of professional employment;. . . .

In Wesp v. Everson, 33 P.3d 191, 196-7 (Colo. 2001), the Colorado Supreme Court explained the public policy underlying the attorney-client privilege and acknowledged its tension with the judicial system's truth-seeking goals. The Court stated: "[T]he harshness of the operation of the privilege is softened by a number of exceptions and by the doctrine of waiver, all of which are consistent with the goals of the privilege." Id. at 197.

Colorado has limited the scope of the attorney-client privilege in matters where the communications between a client and his attorney are made for the purpose of aiding the commission of a future crime or a present continuing crime. A. v. District Court, 550 P.2d at 324; Losavio v. District Court, 188 Colo. 127, 533 P.2d 32 (Colo. 1975). This exception was extended to cases involving civil fraud in Caldwell v. District Court, 644 P.2d 26 (Colo. 1982) and is now known as the "crime-fraud" exception to the attorney-client privilege.

As stated above, the quantum of proof necessary for the application of the crime-fraud exception is "a prima facie showing that the exception applies to each document before the document is actually stripped of its privilege and admitted into evidence." A. v. District Court, 550 P.2d at 326 (1976). "A prima facie showing exists where the plaintiff raises a reasonable inference. . . ." First Horizon Merchant Services, Inc. v. Wellspring Capital Management, LLC, No. 05CA2370, slip op. at 2, 2007 WL 1149980 (Colo.App. April 19, 2007). "Inferences from circumstantial facts may frequently amount to full proof of a given theory, and may even be strong enough to overcome the force and effect of direct testimony to the contrary." The Wenona, 86 U.S. 41, 58 (1873); Pregeant v. Pan American World Airways, Inc., 762 F.2d 1245, 1249, n. 5 (5th Cir. 1985). "[Federal]Rule[of Evidence] 401 declares a liberal relevancy standard that incorporates notions of both materiality and probativity. U.S. v. McVeigh, 153 F.3d 1166, 1190 (10th Cir. 1998). A fact is material or "of consequence" under Rule 401 "when its existence would provide the fact-finder with a basis for making some inference, or chain of inferences, about an issue. . . ." Cook v. Rockwell Intern. Corp, No. Civ.A. 90-CV-00181-J, slip op. at 59, 2006 WL 3533049 (D. Colo. Dec. 7, 2006).

In the present case, analysis of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege requires consideration of the elements of rules related to non-disclosure or concealment. As stated by the Colorado Court of Appeals in Bair v. Public Service Employees Credit Union, 709 P.2d 961, 962 (Colo.App. 1985) (quoting from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 551(2) (1977)):

One party to a business transaction is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to disclose to the other before the transaction is consummated

* * *

(e) facts basic to the transaction, if he knows that the other is about to enter into it under a mistake as to them, and that the other, because of the relationship between them, the customs of the trade or other objective circumstances, would reasonably expect the disclosure of those facts.

In addition, the Amended Complaint contains a claim for civil conspiracy. In this claim, Lee alleges, inter alia:

The actions of State Farm, Rodman and/or Seaman in concert by words and conduct conspired to accomplish the unlawful goal of defrauding Lee exemplified by deceiving Lee into signing the agreement with Thorne through the events described above, by committing a fraud upon Lee as determined by Judge Perricone, in using that unlawful fraud as part of its initiation for its declaratory judgment suit filed against Lee in federal court, and in using that action to perpetuate its fraud against Lee, all of which has caused Lee injuries, damages and losses in amounts to be determined at trial.

There are five elements required to establish a civil conspiracy in Colorado. There must be: (1) two or more persons, and for this purpose a corporation is a person; (2) an object to be accomplished; (3) a meeting of the minds on the object or course of action; (4) one or more unlawful overt acts; and (5) damages as the proximate result thereof. Jet Courier Service, Inc., an Ohio Corporation, v. Anthony Mulei and American Check Transport, Inc., 771 P.2d 486, 498 (Colo. 1989). "The essence of a civil conspiracy claim is not the conspiracy itself, but the actual damages resulting from it." Id. at 502. Moreover, "[a] conspiracy may be implied by a course of conduct and other circumstantial evidence. . . . There must be some indicia of agreement in an unlawful means or end." Schneider v. Midtown Motor Co., 854 P.2d 1322, 1326-7 (Colo.App. 1992).

To establish a claim for fraudulent concealment or non-disclosure, the plaintiff must show that the defendant had a duty to disclose the information. Bair, 709 P.2d 961 at 962. Whether a defendant had a duty to disclose a particular fact is a question of law. See Van Winkle v. Transamerican Title Insurance Co., 697 P.2d 784 (Colo.App. 1984). A person has a duty to disclose to another with whom he deals facts that "in equity or good conscience" should be disclosed. See Eckley v. Colorado Real Estate Commission, 752 P.2d 68 (Colo. 1988).

Under Colorado law, there is a quasi-fiduciary relationship between an insurer and its insured. In American Family Mutual Ins. Co. v. Allen, 102 P.3d 333, 342 (Colo. 2004), the Colorado Supreme Court stated:

An insurer must deal in good faith with its insured. The insurance contract imposes a `quasi-fiduciary' relationship between the insurer and insured that imposes an implied covenant of good faith upon the insurer. This special relationship gives rise to a separate action in tort when the insurer breaches its duty of good faith and fair dealing.

(Citations omitted); see also Farmers Group Inc., v. Trimble, 691 P.2d 1138, 1141 (Colo. 1984).

Applying these legal principles to the facts of this case, the Special Master concludes that Lee has made a prima facie showing that State Farm and its attorneys, Seaman and Giometti, and Rodman, as Thorne's counsel but also acting as State Farm's agent, knew and concealed the fact from Thorne that State Farm would consider Thorne in breach of the cooperation clause of his policy if he entered into the proposed Bashor agreement. Further, Lee has made a prima facie showing that State Farm and its attorneys and agent knew and concealed the fact from Thorne that after creating the false impression that Thorne was cooperating with a strategy approved by State Farm and its attorneys, State Farm intended to file a lawsuit naming Thorne as a defendant. These facts that were concealed were material and State Farm and its attorneys and agent concealed and failed to disclose these facts with the intent of creating a false impression of the actual facts in Thorne's mind. Further, Thorne by acting in reliance on a misunderstanding of the true facts, allowed State Farm to set in motion the events that resulted in the prosecution of the declaratory judgment action.

Separate and apart from the duties owed to Thorne, State Farm and its attorneys and agent can be liable in damages under the facts of this case to Lee. See Holmes v. Young, 885 P.2d 305, 311, (Colo.App. 1994); Zimmerman v. Dan Kamphausen 971 P.2d 236, 241 (Colo.App. 1998).⁴ The Special Master concludes that Lee has made a prima facie showing that State Farm and its attorneys and Rodman "in equity and good conscience," should have disclosed to Lee the information in the EAP letter before Lee signed the Bashor agreement. Further, they should have disclosed that material facts had been concealed from Thorne and that he (Thorne) was entering into the Bashor agreement with the misimpression that he was cooperating with a strategy that State Farm had approved when, unbeknownst to Thorne, State Farm planned to file the declaratory judgment action against both Thorne and Lee as soon as the ink on their signatures on the Bashor agreement had dried. The Special Master concludes that Lee has made a prima facie showing that State Farm and its attorneys, Seaman and Giometti, and Rodman as State Farm's agent, concealed these facts from Lee, and that Lee relied to her detriment on false information when she entered into the Bashor agreement.

4 See also Anstine v. Alexander, 128 P.3d 249, 256 (Colo.App. 2005) ("the law does not insulate aiders and abettors from liability simply because they acted in the course of fulfilling separate and distinct duties as lawyers"), rev'd on other grounds, Alexander v. Anstine, 152 P.3d 497, 503 (Colo. 2007) ("We save for another day the question of whether an attorney can ever be liable for aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty to a non-client.").

Pertinent to the issues raised in the Motion to Compel, the Special Master concludes that Lee has made a prima facie showing that State Farm's filing of the declaratory judgment action was in furtherance of a plan to perpetrate a fraud that had been developed by State Farm, its attorneys and its agent before the Bashor was signed and that the fraud continued after the filing of the declaratory judgment action. The actions in furtherance of this plan include the filing of State Farm's Motion Re: Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege, filed September 23, 2002, and State Farm's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment, filed on December 30, 2002. These acts continued up through the ruling of Judge Perricone when State Farm's actions were exposed and the case that State Farm and its attorneys and agent had devised disassembled.

As stated above, the application of the crime-fraud exception requires a review of each document for which the privilege is claimed. Applying the conclusions set forth herein, the Special Master's recommendations regarding disclosure based on the crime-fraud exception are set forth in the attached chart (Exhibit 1), containing recommendations as to each document.

At Issue Waiver

In Mountain States Telephone Telegraph Co. v. DiFede, 780 P. 2d at 543, the Colorado Supreme Court adopted the "at issue" waiver to the privilege as the law in Colorado. In that case the Court stated:

Although we have not directly addressed this issue before, it is clear from our review of cases from other states that by placing in issue a confidential communication going directly to the claim or defense, a party impliedly waives the attorney-client privilege with respect to that communication.

Id.; see also Metro Wastewater Reclamation Dist. v. Continental Cas. Co., 142 F.R.D. 471, 477 (D. Colo. 1992) ("a party impliedly waives the attorney-client privilege when he places a claim or defense at issue, and the document or information in question has a direct bearing on that claim or defense"). This doctrine is based on principles of fairness. See e.g. Restatement (Third) of Law Governing Lawyers § 80 cmt. b and Reporter's Note (2000).

Lee, as the party seeking to overcome the privilege, has the burden of proving waiver. DiFede, 780 P.2d at 542. In DiFede, the Colorado Supreme Court held that a privilege holder impliedly waives the privilege when the following factors are shown:

(1) assertion of the privilege was a result of some affirmative act, such as filing suit, by the asserting party; (2) through this affirmative act, the asserting party put the protected information at issue by making it relevant to the case; and (3) application of the privilege would have denied the opposing party access to information vital to his defense.

780 P.2d at 543-44.

In consideration of the application of the DiFede factors, in the context of the findings of fact set forth above, the Special Master concludes first that the present assertion of the privilege was ultimately a result of an affirmative act by State Farm. This litigation was originally filed by State Farm, and State Farm persisted in its strategy until after the ruling by Judge Perricone. Second, by pursuing this strategy, State Farm placed at issue in this litigation the communications that it now claims to be privileged. Third, having reviewed the documents in the in camera submission, the Special Master concludes that the application of the privilege would deny Lee of vital information that she would have needed to defend against the declaratory judgment action and to prosecute her claims. Further, as previously noted, State Farm, itself, has relied upon the "at issue" waiver doctrine as a basis for its motion that asserted that Thorne had waived privilege.

The Special Master concludes that the DiFede factors have been established by the facts of this case and the "at issue" waiver should be applied accordingly. Applying the conclusions set forth herein, the Special Master's recommendations regarding disclosure based on the "at issue" waiver are set forth in the attached chart (Exhibit 1), containing a recommendation as to each document for which the privilege has been claimed.

The Privilege Log

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure sets forth the requirements for asserting claims of privilege on a log in accordance with the provisions of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(5)(A) as follows:

(5) Claims of Privilege or Protection of Trial-Preparation Materials.

(A) Information Withheld. When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under these rules by claiming that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material, the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.

The failure to comply with this rule results in a waiver of the claims of privilege. See Atteberry v. Longmont United Hosp., 221 F.R.D. 644, 649 (D. Colo. 2004) (failure to produce a privilege log or production of an inadequate privilege log may be deemed a waiver of the privilege asserted); Pham v. Hartford Fire Insurance Company, 193 F.R.D. 659, 662 (D. Colo. 2000) (same);see also, Sonnino v. University of Kansas Hosp. Authority, 221 F.R.D. 661, 668-669 (D. Kan. 2004) ("It is well settled that when a party withholds documents or other information based on a privilege or work product immunity, the `party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection.'"); Horton v. U.S., 204 F.R.D. 670, 673 (D. Colo. 2002) ("the cases imposing the requirement of a privilege log do not carve out of the requirement documents between a lawyer and client created after the initiation of the litigation."); McCoo v. Denny's, Inc., 192 F.R.D. 675, 680 (D. Kan. 2000).

This case law is grounded in the bedrock principle that the party asserting the claim of privilege bears the burden of establishing its applicability. See Wesp, 33 P.3d at 196-197 (attorneyclient privilege). The Colorado rule requiring a privilege log (C.R.C.P. 26(b)(5)) is patterned after the federal rule, and the law of waiver for failure to comply with this rule applies whether under Colorado or federal law. See Alcon v. Spicer, 113 P.3d 735, 741-2 (Colo. 2005) ("when a party wishes to assert privilege in response to a discovery request he or she must notify the party seeking disclosure by providing a privilege log identifying the documents withheld and explaining the privilege claim.").

The Special Master has been provided with State Farm's privilege log. The log is presented in the form of a spreadsheet with headings enumerating the following subjects:

1. document number;

2. bates number (Seaman);

3. nature of document, communication or other material;

4. date of origin; and

5. reason for not producing or not disclosing.

While these categories purport to comply with the requirements of the privilege log rule, the Special Master concludes that in numerous instances, State Farm has failed to provide information sufficient to satisfy these requirements. Examples of this failure are State Farm's blanket assertion of privilege in the billing records and numerous facsimile cover sheets, requiring the Special Master to review these materials without having been provided the specific information required to assist the Special Master to evaluate the claims.

Applying the conclusions set forth herein, the Special Master's recommendations regarding disclosure based on waiver for State Farm's failure to submit a proper privilege log are set forth in the attached chart (Exhibit 1), containing a recommendation as to each document for which the privilege has been claimed.

Billing Records

In general, billing records are not accorded privileged status unless specific entries contain privileged communications. InWesp, 33 P.3d at 199, n. 15, the Colorado Supreme Court stated:

Certain other types of information communicated between attorney and client are also not protected by the privilege and may be discovered. For instance, an attorney generally may not refuse to answer questions about the identity of a client and fee arrangements.

In United States v. Hodgson, 492 F.2d 1175, 1177 (10th Cir. 1974), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit considered a response to a subpoena seeking attorney fee related records in a tax matter. The Court held:

Attorney Hodgson made a blanket claim of the privilege. A general refusal to cooperate is not enough. He must normally raise the privilege as to each record sought and each question asked so that at the enforcement hearing the court can rule with specificity.

State Farm has routinely applied the privilege to billing records. In many instances these records run to many pages. The privilege has been asserted in blanket fashion relating to all entries within a given document. Each document varies in length, but the format contains references to date, initials of the provider, time reference in tenths of hours and usually a cryptic one line reference to the activity. The claim of privilege does not address in detail the elements or specific items within these records for which the privilege is claimed, leaving it to the Special Master to try to isolate those entries for which privilege might apply.

Applying the conclusions set forth herein, the Special Master's recommendations regarding disclosure of the billing records are set forth in the attached chart (Exhibit 1), containing a recommendation as to each document for which the privilege has been claimed.

Miscellaneous Non-Privilege Documents

In numerous instances State Farm has included documents in the privilege log such as fax cover sheets, emails, and other transmission documents that do not, on their face, appear to contain any information that is protected by application of the attorney-client privilege. The Special Master has considered these documents under the principles articulated above and has set forth his recommendations in the attached chart. Exhibit 1.

Attorney Work Product

State Farm's assertions of the attorney work product doctrine raise issues that must be considered separately from the attorney-client privilege issues addressed above. See e.g. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 508 (1947) (attorney-client privilege does not apply to writings that reflect an attorney's mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories); In re Foster, 188 F.3d 1259, 1272 (10th Cir. 1999) (work product is broader and distinct from attorney-client privilege). While in diversity cases state law governs claims of attorney-client privilege, the application of the work product doctrine is governed by a uniform federal standard embodied in Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(3). Frontier Refining, Inc. v. Gorman-Rupp Co., Inc., 136 F.3d 695, 702 (10th Cir. 1998).

The party claiming work product must meet its burden of demonstrating that each of the documents to which work product protection is claimed was in fact prepared in anticipation of litigation. Grand Jury Proceedings v. U.S., 156 F.3d 1038, 1042 (10th 1998); Lifewise Master Funding v. Telebank, 206 F.R.D. 298, 304 (D.Utah 2002) ("the mere allegation of [the work product doctrine's] application is insufficient."). "Because the work product doctrine is intended only to guard against divulging the attorney's strategies and legal impressions, it does not protect facts concerning the creation of work product or facts within the product." Id. at 304.

The contours of the application of the work product doctrine were addressed by the Honorable John L. Kane in Marcin Engineering, LLC, v. Founders at Grizzly Ranch, LLC, 219 F.R.D. 516, 525 (D. Colo. 2003) as follows:

This doctrine applies to documents and tangible things prepared by a party in anticipation of litigation. It does not apply to facts underlying or contained in such documents. The party resisting discovery bears the burden to timely show that documents constitute work product. Even if the resisting party carries this burden, it nonetheless must produce the work product if the requesting party shows it has substantial need of the material and that it is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the material by other means.

(Citations omitted).

Applying these legal standards, the Special Master has reviewed each claim of work product protection and has set forth his recommendations as to each claim in the attached chart. Exhibit 1.

IV. RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT

D.C.COLO.LCivR 83.4, Standards of Professional Responsibility, states as follows:

. . . [T]he rules of professional conduct adopted by the Colorado Supreme Court and in effect on the effective date of these rules are adopted as standards of professional responsibility applicable in this court.

Pursuant to the Order Appointing Special Master, the Special Master has considered the conduct of Giometti, Seaman and Rodman under all of the applicable provisions of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct.⁵ As stated above, this consideration is separate and apart from the recommendations regarding privilege and work product in this Report. See Preamble to the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct ("these Rules are not intended to govern or affect judicial application of either the attorney-client or work product privilege.").

5 See also CBA Ethics Opinion 91: "Ethical Duties of Attorney Selected by Insurer to Represent Insured," adopted 1/16/93, ("A lawyer retained by a liability insurance carrier to defend a claim against the company's insured must represent the insured with undivided fidelity. . . ."), supplementing Ethics Opinion 43: "Duty to Insured," 12/13/69; Addendum Issued 1995.

In considering these issues, the Special Master has reviewed and gives particular regard to the purpose of these ethical standards, the policies that underlie them and the admonitions and advisements in the "Preamble" and "Scope" sections of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct. The Preamble eloquently sets forth the essential function of the rule of law in our society and the critical role of lawyers:

The continued existence of a free and democratic society depends upon recognition of the concept that justice is based upon the rule of law grounded in respect for the dignity of the individual and each person's capacity through reason for enlightened self-government. Law so grounded makes justice possible, for only through such law does the dignity of the individual attain respect and protection. Without it, individual rights become subject to unrestrained power, respect for law is destroyed, and rational self-government is impossible.

Lawyers, as guardians of the law, play a vital role in the preservation of society. The fulfillment of this role requires an understanding by lawyers of their relationship with and function in our legal system. A consequent obligation of lawyers is to maintain the highest standards of ethical conduct.

The Special Master also notes, as set forth in the Scope, the significant distinction throughout the Rules between the Rules that are imperative, cast in the terms "shall" or "shall not," and those that are permissive, generally cast in the term "may." The permissive provisions define areas under the Rules of Professional Conduct in which lawyers have discretion, and the imperative provisions define proper and improper conduct for purposes of professional discipline.

The Special Master is bound by the Code of Conduct for United States Judge. See 1-17B(1). Pursuant to Canon 3B(3) of the Code: "A judge should initiate appropriate action when the judge becomes aware of reliable evidence indicating the likelihood of unprofessional conduct by a judge or lawyer."

The Special Master views his task to be that of identifying any rules of the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct with respect to which, in his judgment, there is a substantial question as to whether the conduct at issue may have violated mandatory professional responsibilities. The limited purpose of this undertaking is to aid the Court to determine whether the Court should further consider any ethical issues that may warrant action. For guidance in undertaking this task, the Special Master looks to Rule 8.3, Reporting Professional Misconduct. That Rule states:

(a) A lawyer having knowledge that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate professional authority.⁶

6 This Rule imposes a reporting obligation on the Special Master, who is an attorney licensed to practice in Colorado. The Special Master considers that the "appropriate professional authority" under the circumstances of this case is the Court, for the purpose of aiding the Court to determine whether further action is required.

Further, addressing the attorney's duty of candor in In re DeRose, 55 P.3d 126, 131 (Colo. 2002), the Colorado Supreme Court stated as follows:

Attorneys must adhere to high moral and ethical standards. Truthfulness, honesty, and candor are core values of the legal profession. Lawyers serve our system of justice as officers of the court, and if lawyers are dishonest, then there is a perception that the system must also be dishonest. Attorney misconduct perpetuates the public's misperception of the legal profession and breaches the public and professional trust.

(Citations omitted).

In this same vein, in People v. Costa, 56 P.3d 130, 135 (Colo. O.P.D.J. 2002), the Colorado Supreme Court stated:

An attorney's misrepresentation of material facts to a court with the aim of benefitting himself or others to the detriment of his adverse party cannot be tolerated under an adversary system which depends upon the honesty of its officers to render fair and just decisions. Judicial officers, members of the profession and the public at large must be able to rely upon the truthfulness of an attorney's statements to the court. Confidence in the truth-seeking process engendered in our system of justice cannot exist absent such reliance.

In making the determination whether a "substantial question" is presented, the Special Master notes that the Comment to Rule 8.3 does not set forth the quantum of proof necessary to meet this standard, but instead states:

. . . A measure of judgment is . . . required in complying with the provisions of this rule. The term `substantial' refers to the seriousness of the possible offense and not the quantum of evidence of which the lawyer is aware.

The Committee Comment to Rule 8.3 does, however, provide guidance as to the quantum of proof necessary for an attorney's "knowledge" that gives rise to a reporting obligation. The Committee Comment states:

In recommending this rule, the Committee adopted the definition of knowledge contained in Restatement of Restitution, 10, Comment (d) (1937), similarly adopted in Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee Opinion 64 (April 23, 1983) `Knowledge means no substantial doubt.'

With these legal principles in mind, the Special Master has reviewed the conduct of Giometti, Seaman and Rodman and sets forth his comments as to each of the separate Rules of Professional Conduct that may be implicated.

Rule 1.1 Competence

A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.

(Emphasis supplied).

The Special Master believes there is a substantial question as to whether Giometti and Seaman provided competent representation to State Farm. In reaching this conclusion, the Special Master has given great weight to the opinion letter of Mr. Laugesen and to Judge Perricone's Order finding that the strategy that they developed and advised their client to pursue was the perpetration of a fraud.

The Special Master further believes that there is a substantial question as to whether Rodman provided competent representation to Thorne. In reaching this conclusion, the Special Master notes that as a consequence of Rodman's acts and omissions in his representation of Thorne, his client was embroiled in litigation initiated by State Farm for nearly a year and suffered emotional distress.

Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation

* * *

(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.

(Emphasis supplied).

The Special Master believes that there is a substantial question as to whether Giometti and Seaman both counseled and assisted State Farm to engage in conduct that they knew or should have known to be fraudulent. In reaching this conclusion, the Special Master has again given great weight to the opinion letter of Mr. Laugesen and to Judge Perricone's Order finding that the strategy that they developed and advised their client to pursue was the perpetration of a fraud.

The Special Master further believes that there is a substantial question as to whether Rodman violated this rule. While Rodman's client was Thorne, the facts and circumstances support the conclusion that Rodman was acting as State Farm's agent, elevating the interests of State Farm above the interests of his client. In that regard, the record that has been provided to the Special Master supports the conclusion that Rodman assisted State Farm to engage in conduct that Rodman knew or should have known to be fraudulent. In reaching this conclusion, the Special Master has again given great weight to the opinion letter of Mr. Laugesen and to Judge Perricone's Order.

Rule 1.4 Communication

* * *

(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

(Emphasis supplied).

The Special Master believes that there is a substantial question as to whether Giometti and Seaman explained to State Farm that the course of action they advised State Farm to take could reasonably be viewed as the perpetration of a fraud. In reaching this conclusion, the Special Master has again given great weight to the opinion letter of Mr. Laugesen and to Judge Perricone's Order finding that the strategy that they developed and advised their client to pursue was the perpetration of a fraud.

Further, Rodman admits that he did not explain to Thorne the risks to him and the potential consequences of his entering into the Bashor agreement, and, therefore, the Special Master believes there is a substantial question as to whether this admitted failure to inform the client of these potential consequences violated this Rule.

Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest

(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and

(2) each client consents after consultation.

(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and

(2) the client consents after consultation. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved.

(c) For the purposes of this Rule, a client's consent cannot be validly obtained in those instances in which a disinterested lawyer would conclude that the client should not agree to the representation under the circumstances of the particular situation.

(Emphasis supplied).

The Special Master believes that there is a substantial question as to whether Rodman's long relationship with State Farm, including his direct attorney-client relationship with State Farm on a number of matters, with the financial benefits that Rodman received therefrom, materially limited his responsibilities to his other client, Thorne, and whether Rodman elevated the interests of State Farm above the interests of Thorne. In reaching this conclusion, the Special Master notes that Rodman continued to represent Thorne after the Kaudy letter that put him on actual notice of the conflict between the interests of Thorne and State Farm. Even assuming arguendo that this conflict was one that could be waived under this Rule, there is no dispute that Rodman did not obtain Thorne's informed consent to continue with the representation, as required by the Rule.

Rule 1.8 Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions

* * *

(f) A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless:

(1) the client consents after consultation;

(2) there is no interference with the lawyer's independence of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and

(3) information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by Rule 1.6.

(Emphasis supplied).

The Special Master believes that there is a substantial question as to whether Rodman's concerns for the interests of State Farm — the payer of his bills — interfered with both his independent professional judgment and his attorney-client relationship with Thorne.

Rule 1.16 Declining or Termination Representation

a) Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer shall not represent a client or, where representation has commenced, shall withdraw from the representation of a client if:

(1) the representation will result in violation of the rules of professional conduct or other law;

* * *

(Emphasis supplied).

The Special Master believes that there is a substantial question as to whether Giometti, Seaman and Rodman all knew or should have known that their conduct in pursuing the strategy that they developed would result in the violation of the Rules, as set forth herein, and the perpetration of a fraud, as found by Judge Perricone.

Rule 2.1 Advisor

In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as moral, economic, social and political factors, that may be relevant to the client's situation. In a matter involving or expected to involve litigation, a lawyer should advise the client of alternative forms of dispute resolution which might reasonably be pursued to attempt to resolve the legal dispute or to reach the legal objective sought.

(Emphasis supplied).

The Special Master believes there is a substantial question as to whether Rodman violated this Rule by failing to exercise independent professional judgment and render candid advice to Thorne. The Special Master further believes there is a substantial question as to whether Rodman's conduct in his representation of Thorne was materially affected by his prior and ongoing relationship with State Farm.

Rule 3.1 Meritorious Claims and Contentions

A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law . . .

(Emphasis supplied).

The Special Master believes that there is a substantial question as to whether Seaman and Giometti violated this Rule by the filing of the declaratory judgment action. In reaching this conclusion, the Special Master has again given great weight to the opinion letter of Mr. Laugesen and to Judge Perricone's Order finding that the strategy that they developed and advised their client to pursue was the perpetration of a fraud.

Rule 3.3 Candor Toward the Tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal;

(2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client.

* * *

(b) The duties stated in paragraph (a) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6.

(Emphasis supplied).

The Special Master believes that there is a substantial question as to whether Rodman violated Rule 3.3 in filing the stipulation for dismissal in the state court action, knowing that his client and Lee had not been informed of material facts before they entered into the Bashor agreement.

Further, the Special Master believes that there is a substantial question as to whether Seaman and Giometti violated this Rule in the filing of the declaratory judgment action and in their conduct in that action up through the withdrawal of their motion for partial summary judgment and their withdrawal as counsel. In reaching these conclusions, the Special Master has again given great weight to the opinion letter of Mr. Laugesen and to Judge Perricone's Order finding that the strategy that these attorneys developed and pursued was the perpetration of a fraud.

Rule 3.4 Fairness to Opposing Counsel

A lawyer shall not:

(a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act;

(b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;

* * *

(f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily giving relevant information to another party unless:

(1) the person is a relative of a client or an employee or other agent of a client; and

(2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person's interests will not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information.

(Emphasis supplied).

The Special Master believes that there is a substantial question as to whether Rodman unlawfully obstructed Lee's access to information that she needed to reasonably determine whether she should enter into the Bashor agreement. In reaching these conclusions, the Special Master has again given great weight to the opinion letter of Mr. Laugesen and to Judge Perricone's Order finding that the strategy that these attorneys developed and pursued was the perpetration of a fraud.

Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others

In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not knowingly:

(a) make a false or misleading statement of fact or law to a third person; or

(b) fail to disclose a material fact to a third person when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client, unless disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

(Emphasis supplied).

The Special Master believes that there is a substantial question as to whether Seaman, Giometti and Rodman violated this Rule in their actions and omissions in connection with the presentation of the Bashor agreement to both Lee and Thorne. Again, in reaching these conclusions, the Special Master has given great weight to the opinion letter of Mr. Laugesen and to Judge Perricone's Order finding that the strategy that these attorneys developed and pursued was the perpetration of a fraud.

Rule 5.4 Professional Independence of a Lawyer

* * *

(c) A lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate the lawyer's professional judgment in rendering such legal services.

(Emphasis supplied).

Again, as set forth above, the Special Master believes that there is a substantial question as to whether Rodman's concerns for the interests of State Farm — the payer of his bills — interfered with his independent professional judgment in representing Thorne.

Rule 8.4 Misconduct

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the rules of professional conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the act of another;

(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

* * *

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

(g) engage in conduct which violates accepted standards of legal ethics; or

(h) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.

(Emphasis supplied).

As set forth above, the Special Master believes that there is a substantial question as to whether Seaman, Giometti and Rodman engaged in misconduct within the meaning of this Rule. Again, in reaching these conclusions, the Special Master has given great weight to the opinion letter of Mr. Laugeson and to Judge Perricone's Order finding that the strategy that these attorneys developed and pursued was the perpetration of a fraud.

V. RECOMMENDATIONS

In applying the findings and conclusions enumerated above, the Special Master has reviewed each of the documents for which privilege is claimed. The chart attached as Exhibit 1 is a copy of the privilege log submitted by State Farm, with a column to denote the Special Master's recommendation that the subject document should be disclosed for any of the following grounds: the crime-fraud exception (CFE), the "at issue" waiver (AI), and/or insufficient description (ID). Alternatively, a recommendation that the subject document should not be disclosed is identified as privileged (P). EXHIBIT 1 to SPECIAL MASTER'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF JUNE 4, 2007 Lee v. State Farm ATTORNEY/CLIENT AND WORK PRODUCT REVISED PRIVILEGE LOG SEAMAN, GIOMETTI MURPHY, P.C. FILES DOCUMENT BATES NATURE OF DATE REASON FOR CONTENTS NUMBER NUMBER DOCUMENT, OF NOT PRODUCING PRIVILEGED/ (SEAMAN) COMMUNICATION ORIGIN OR NOT NON OR OTHER DISCLOSING MATERIAL Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose 1681 1853 Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclosed Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose 1219 Not Disclosed Disclose Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Not Disclosed; Disclose; Not Disclosed; Disclose; Disclose; Not Disclosed; Not Disclosed; Not Disclosed; Disclose; Disclose; Not Disclosed; Disclose; and copied to Jon Sands, Brian Arakaki and Richard Schulkins Disclose; Disclose; Not Disclosed; Not Disclosed; Not Disclosed; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Not Disclosed; Not Disclosed; Not Disclosed; Disclose; Not Disclosed; Disclose; Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose 1797 Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Not Disclosed 1928 Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose 2013 2014 — 2018 Letter from Tom Seaman 12/03/02 Attorney/Client Disclose to Steve Baird with Privilege as it is a attached documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Not Disclosed Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Not Disclosed Not Disclosed; Not Disclosed; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Not Disclosed; Disclose; Disclose; Not Disclosed; Not Disclosed; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Not Disclosed; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Not Disclosed; Disclose; Not Disclosed; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Not Disclosed; Not Disclosed; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; 2708 2709 — 2712 Handwritten note from 07/12/02 Attorney/Client Disclose; Tom Seaman to Greg Privilege and Work Giometti, with attached Product as it consists E-Mail from Sylvia D. of mental Moseley, secretary at impressions, SGM conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Not Disclosed; Not Disclosed; 13-22-307 Not Disclosed; 13-22-307Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; Disclose; 3556 3557 — 3558 SGM Cost Request from 12/26/02 Attorney/Client Disclose; Tom Seaman to Brian Privilege as it is a Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose Disclose; Disclose; Not Disclosed; 3693 3754 3755 E-Mail from Richard 10/03/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to State Farm Privilege as it is a attorneys communication between State Farm's legal counsel and is unrelated to this case Disclose 1. 0001-0002 Letter from Tom 07/22/05 Attorney/Client ; Seaman, to Jon Sands Privilege as it is a CFE ID enclosing Seaman, communication Giometti, Murphy, between State Farm's P.C. (SGM) billing legal counsel. statements 2. 0012-0070 SGM Billing Statements 07/21/05; Attorney/Client ; 11/02/04; Privilege and Work ID, AI ID 08/31/04; Product as it is a 05/31/04; communication from 02/29/04; State Farm's legal 08/31/03; counsel to State Farm 06/30/03; representatives. 04/30/03; 02/28/03; Redacted 07/31/02 01/31/03; statement (6/17/02 12/31/02; through 07/30/02) 11/30/02; has been produced — 10/31/02; see Bates Nos. 0007 — 08/31/02; 0011. 07/31/02 3. 0079-0080 Fax Cover Sheets from 08/13/02 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti to Steve Privilege as it is a ID Baird, Auto Team communication from Manager State Farm's legal counsel to State Farm representatives. 4. 0087; 0165; SGM bcc pages to State Multiple Attorney/Client ; 0187; 0197; Farm representatives dates Privilege as it is a ID 0201; 0324; and/or legal counsel after communication from 0327; 0334; attached to miscellaneous 09/17/02 State Farm's legal 0339; 0362; correspondence from counsel to State Farm 0364; 0415; SGM to third parties representatives. 0431; 0478; 0492; 0497; 0510; 0573; 0590; 0593; 0622; 0628; 0647; 0681; 0694; 0711; 0758; 0768; 0785; 0794; 0896; 0929; 0977; 0993; 1102; 1162; 1314; 1331; 1411; 1490; 1642; 1644; ; 1710; 1714; 1753; 1761; 1763; 1765; 1841; ; 1855; 1858; 1864; 5. 0091-0098 Letter from Greg 08/07/02 Attorney/Client ; Giometti to Dave Eaton, Privilege and Work AI Auto Claim Consultant, Product as it is a re: status of litigation and communication from fax cover sheets State Farm's legal counsel to State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 6. 0105-0116 Letter from Greg 07/19/02 Attorney/Client ; Giometti to Dave Eaton Privilege and Work CFE AI re: status of litigation and Product as it is a legal opinion communication from State Farm's legal counsel to State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 7. 0117-0131 Letter from Greg 07/17/02 Attorney/Client ; Giometti to Dave Eaton Privilege and Work CFE AI re: status of litigation and Product as it is a legal opinion and fax communication from cover sheets State Farm's legal counsel to State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 8. 0136-0138 Fax Cover Sheet from 07/15/02 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Dave Privilege as it is a ID Eaton and Brian Arakaki, communication from Auto Section Manager State Farm's legal counsel to State Farm representatives. 9. 0169-0171; Fax Cover Sheets from Multiple Attorney/Client ; 0997-1001; SGM to State Farm legal dates Privilege as it is a ID 1031-1033; counsel and/or State after communication from 1757-1759; Farm representatives 09/17/02 State Farm's legal 1984-1986; counsel to State Farm 2032-2034; representatives. 2075; 2149; 2151-2152; 2387-2389; 10. 0139-0158 Fax Cover Sheet from 07/11/02 Attorney/Client ; Steve Baird to Greg Privilege as it is a ID CFE Giometti and attached communication from documents State Farm representatives to State Farm's legal counsel. 11. 0159-0162 Fax Cover Sheet from 07/11/02 Attorney/Client ; Steve Baird to Greg Privilege as it is a CFE ID Giometti and attached communication from documents State Farm representatives to State Farm's legal counsel. 12. 0180-0184 Letter from Tom Seaman 07/09/02 Attorney/Client ; to Dave Eaton re: status Privilege and Work CFE AI of litigation and fax Product as it is a cover sheets communication from State Farm's legal counsel to State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 13. 0192-0194 Letter from Tom Seaman 07/03/02 Attorney/Client ; to Dave Eaton re: status Privilege and Work CFE AI of litigation Product as it is a communication from State Farm's legal counsel to State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 14. 0345-0348 Fax Cover Sheet from 10/14/02 Attorney/Client ; Toni Hilton, secretary for Privilege as it is a ID Brian Arakaki, to Mary communication from Frangis with attached State Farm documents representatives to State Farm's legal counsel. 15. 0351 E-Mail from Tom 10/11/02 Attorney/Client ; Seaman to Richard Privilege and Work P Schulkins, Counsel for Product as it is a State Farm communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 16. 0359 E-Mail from Richard 10/11/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Michele Privilege and Work P Mancias, Attorney for Product as it is a State Farm and copied to communication Tom Seaman between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 17. 0360 E-Mail from Richard 10/11/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work P Seaman Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 18. 0365-0376 Fax Cover Sheet from 10/09/02 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege and Work CFE Schulkins, Michelle Product as it is a Mancias and Brian communication Arakaki with attached between State Farm's documents legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 19. 0377-0390 Fax Cover Sheet from 10/09/02 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege and Work CFE Schulkins, Michelle Product as it is a Mancias and Brian communication Arakaki with attached between State Farm's documents legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 20. 0391-0400 Fax Cover Sheet from 10/08/02 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege and Work P Schulkins and Brian Product as it is a Arakaki with attached communication documents between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 21. 0401-0405 Fax Cover Sheet from 10/07/02 Attorney/Client ; Richard Schulkins to Privilege and Work CFE AI Tom Seaman with Product as it is a attached documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 22. 0406-0407 E-Mail from Richard 10/07/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work ; Seaman Product as it is a P communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 23. 0408-0409 Fax Cover Sheet from 10/04/02 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins, Michelle communication Mancias and Brian between State Farm's Arakaki legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 24. 0410-0412 Fax Cover Sheet from 10/04/02 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins, Michelle communication Mancias and Brian between State Farm's Arakaki legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 25. 0416 Letter from Greg 10/02/02 Attorney/Client ; Giometti to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 26. 0420-0421 E-Mail from Richard 10/01/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to State Farm Privilege as it is a P attorneys communication between State Farm's legal counsel and is unrelated to this case. 27. 0424 Letter from Tom Seaman 09/30/02 Attorney/Client ; to Richard Schulkins Privilege as it is a ID communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 28. 0428 E-Mail from Richard 09/30/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Brian Privilege as it is a P Arakaki and copied to communication from Tom Seaman State Farm's legal counsel to State Farm representatives. 29. 0432-0439 Fax Cover Sheet from 09/27/02 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege and Work CFE Schulkins and Brian Product as it is a Arakaki with attached communication documents between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 30. 0440-0447 Letter from Tom Seaman 09/27/02 Attorney/Client ; to Richard Schulkins re: Privilege and Work CFE AI status of litigation with Product as it is a attached FedEx receipt communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 31. 0452-0453 Letter from Tom Seaman 09/26/02 Attorney/Client ; to Richard Schulkins re: Privilege and Work P status of litigation Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 32. 0464 Letter from Tom Seaman 09/24/02 Attorney/Client ; to Richard Schulkins Privilege as it is a ID communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 33. 0468-0469 Letter from Tom Seaman 09/23/02 Attorney/Client ; to Richard Schulkins re: Privilege and Work AI status of litigation Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 34. 0482 Letter from Tom Seaman 09/19/02 Attorney/Client ; to Richard Schulkins Privilege as it is a ID communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 35. 0483-0484 Letter from Tom Seaman 09/18/02 Attorney/Client ; to Richard Schulkins re: Privilege and Work ID status of litigation Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 36. 0486-0488 Fax Cover Sheet from 09/17/02 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege and Work P Schulkins re: status of Product as it is a litigation communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 37. 0498-0502 Fax Memo from Richard 09/04/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Greg Privilege and Work AI Giometti with attached Product as it is a documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 38. 0503-0504 Letter from Tom Seaman 09/04/02 Attorney/Client ; to Richard Schulkins re: Privilege and Work P status of litigation Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 39. 0505 Letter from Tom Seaman 09/03/02 Attorney/Client ; to Richard Schulkins Privilege as it is a ID communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 40. 0511-0512 Fax Memo from Richard 08/22/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Greg Privilege and Work AI Giometti Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 41. 0513-0519 Fax Cover Sheet from 08/21/02 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti to Richard Privilege and Work AI Schulkins with attached Product as it is a documents and fax cover communication sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 42. 0520-0524 Letter from Greg 08/16/02 Attorney/Client ; Giometti to Richard Privilege and Work CFE AI Schulkins re: status of Product as it is a litigation and FedEx communication receipt between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 43. 0525-0531 Fax Cover Sheet from 08/16/02 Attorney/Client ; Karl Chambers to Dave Privilege and Work AI Eaton and Brian Arakaki Product as it is a with attached documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 44. 0533 E-Mail from Brian 01/31/03 Attorney/Client ; Arakaki to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins and copied to communication from Tom Seaman and Jon State Farm Sands representatives to State Farm's legal counsel. 45. 0534 E-Mail from Richard 01/31/03 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Dave Eaton Privilege as it is a ID and copied to Tom communication from Seaman, Jon Sands and State Farm's legal Brian Arakaki counsel to State Farm representatives. 46. 0535-0542 Fax Cover Sheet from 01/31/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege and Work CFE AI Schulkins and Jon Sands Product as it is a with attached documents communication and fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 47. 0546-0547 Fax Cover Sheet from 01/29/03 Attorney-Client ; Terri Taylor, secretary Privilege as it is a ID for Tom Seaman, to communication Richard Schulkins between State Farm's legal counsel. 48. 0548-0553 Fax Cover Sheet from 01/29/03 Attorney/Client ; Steve Baird to Tom Privilege as it is a CFE AI Seaman with attached communication from documents State Farm representatives to State Farm's legal counsel. 49. 0561-0565 Letter from Tom Seaman 01/27/03 Attorney/Client ; to Jon Sands re: status of Privilege and Work CFE AI litigation with attached Product as it is a fax cover sheets communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 50. 0566-0567 Fax Cover Sheet from 01/27/03 Attorney-Client ; Greg Giometti to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 51. 0568-0571 Fax Cover Sheet from 01/27/03 Attorney-Client ; Greg Giometti to Richard Privilege as it is a CFE AI Schulkins with attached communication documents and fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel. 52. 0574 Fax Cover Sheet from 01/24/03 Attorney-Client ; Joseph Nistico, Nistico Privilege as it is a ID Crouch, attorney communication representing State Farm, between State Farm's to David Murphy legal counsel. 53. 0575-0579 Fax Cover Sheet from 01/24/03 Attorney-Client ; Ross Pulkrabek, Faegre Privilege as it is a ID Benson, attorney communication representing State Farm, between State Farm's to Tom Seaman with legal counsel. attached documents 54. 0580-0583 Fax Cover Sheet from 01/24/03 Attorney-Client ; David Murphy to Joseph Privilege as it is a ID Nistico with attached communication documents and fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel. 55. 0633-0634 Fax Cover Sheet from 01/21/03 Attorney-Client ; Greg Giometti to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 56. 0635-0636 Fax Cover Sheet from 01/20/02 Attorney/Client ; Michelle Mancias to Privilege and Work CFE AI Greg Giometti with Product as it is a attached correspondence communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 57. 0640 Letter from Michelle 01/20/03 Attorney-Client ; Mancias to Greg Privilege as it is a ID Giometti communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 58. 0641-0644 Fax Cover Sheet from 01/20/03 Attorney-Client ; Michelle Mancias to Privilege as it is a AI Greg Giometti with communication attached documents between State Farm's legal counsel. 59. 0645 E-Mail from Richard 01/17/03 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Greg Privilege and Work P Giometti Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 60. 0664 Letter from Greg 01/17/03 Attorney-Client ; Giometti to Michelle Privilege as it is a ID Mancias communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 61. 0668-0679 Fax Memo from Richard 01/17/03 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Greg Privilege and Work P Giometti with attached Product as it is a documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 62. 0701-0704 Fax Cover Sheet from 01/14/03 Attorney-Client ; Terri for Tom Seaman to Privilege as it is a ID Steve Baird with attached communication documents and fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 63. 0713-0718 Fax Cover Sheet from 01/10/03 Attorney-Client ; Greg Giometti to Steve Privilege as it is a AI Baird with attached communication documents and fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 64. 0719-0724 Letter from Greg 01/10/03 Attorney/Client ; Giometti to Richard Privilege and Work CFE, AI ID Schulkins re: status of Product as it is a litigation with attached communication fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 65. 0728-0735 Letter from Greg 01/10/03 Attorney/Client ; Giometti to Richard Privilege and Work CFE, AI ID Schulkins re: status of Product as it is a litigation with attached communication fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 66. 0748 Letter from Steve Baird 01/06/03 Attorney/Client ; to Greg Giometti Privilege as it is a ID communication from State Farm representatives to State Farm's legal counsel. 67. 0749 Letter from Tom Seaman 01/08/02 Attorney-Client ; to Richard Schulkins Privilege as it is a ID communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 68. 0750-0751 Letter from Tom Seaman 01/08/02 Attorney/Client ; to Steve Baird Privilege as it is a ID communication from State Farm's legal counsel to State Farm representatives. 69. 0752-0753 E-Mail from Marlene 01/08/03 Attorney-Client ; Beliveau, Faegre Privilege as it is a ID Benson, to Paula communication O'Konski, secretary for between State Farm's Greg Giometti legal counsel. 70. 0755 Letter from Steve Baird 01/06/03 Attorney/Client ; to Tom Seaman Privilege as it is a ID communication from State Farm representatives to State Farm's legal counsel. 71. 0761-0762 Letter from Steve Baird 01/06/03 Attorney/Client ; to Greg Giometti with Privilege as it is a ID attached fax sheet communication from State Farm representatives to State Farm's legal counsel. 72. 0797-0801 Fax Cover Sheet from 01/02/02 Attorney-Client ; Michelle Mancias to Privilege as it is a P Greg Giometti and Karl communication Chambers with attached between State Farm's documents legal counsel. 73. 0802-0806 Letter from Greg 01/02/02 Attorney/Client ; Giometti to Brian Privilege and Work P Arakaki re: status of Product as it is a litigation with attached communication from fax cover sheets State Farm's legal counsel to State Farm representatives. 74. 0808-0811 Fax Cover Sheet from 03/28/03 Attorney/Client ; Terri Taylor to Jon Privilege as it is a ID Sands, Richard Schulkins communication and Brian Arakaki with between State Farm's attached fax cover sheets legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 75. 0812-0815 Fax Cover Sheet from 03/27/03 Attorney/Client ; Terri Taylor to Jon Privilege as it is a ID Sands, Richard Schulkins communication and Brian Arakaki with between State Farm's attached fax cover sheets legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 76. 0818-0826 Fax Cover Sheet from 03/17/03 Attorney/Client ; Jon Sands to Tom Privilege and Work ID AI Seaman with attached Product as it is a documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 77. 0827-0839 Fax Cover Sheet from 03/17/03 Attorney/Client ; Jon Sands to Tom Privilege and Work ID AI Seaman with attached Product as it is a documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 78. 0840-0847 Fax Cover Sheet from 03/14/03 Attorney/Client ; Jon Sands to Tom Privilege and Work ID AI Seaman with attached Product as it is a documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 79. 0848-0859 Letter from Tom Seaman 03/14/03 Attorney/Client ; to Jon Sands with Privilege and Work CFE, AI ID attached documents and Product as it is a fax cover sheets communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 80. 0860-0863 Fax Cover Sheet from 03/11/03 Attorney/Client ; Terri Taylor to Jon Privilege as it is a ID Sands, Richard Schulkins communication and Brian Arakaki between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 81. 0864-0867 Fax Cover Sheet from 03/10/03 Attorney/Client ; Terri Taylor to Jon Privilege as it is a ID Sands, Richard Schulkins communication and Brian Arakaki between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 82. 0868-0871 Fax Cover Sheet from 03/06/03 Attorney/Client ; Terri Taylor to Jon Privilege as it is a ID Sands, Richard Schulkins communication and Brian Arakaki between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 83. 0872-0874 Fax Cover Sheet from 03/06/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins and Brian communication Arakaki between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 84. 0875-0878 Fax Cover Sheet from 03/06/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Jon Privilege as it is a ID Sands, Richard Schulkins communication and Brian Arakaki between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 85. 0883-0886 Fax Cover Sheet from 03/03/03 Attorney/Client ; Terri Taylor to Jon Privilege as it is a ID Sands, Richard Schulkins communication and Brian Arakaki between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 86. 0891-0894 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/27/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Jon Privilege as it is a ID Sands, Richard Schulkins communication and Brian Arakaki between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 87. 0897 Letter from Kim 02/25/03 Attorney/Client ; Sutherland, paralegal for Privilege as it is a ID Jon Sands, to Tom communication Seaman between State Farm's legal counsel. 88. 0900-0901 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/25/03 Attorney/Client ; Terri Taylor to Diane, Privilege as it is a ID secretary for Richard communication Schulkins between State Farm's legal counsel. 89. 0902 Letter from Tom Seaman 02/24/03 Attorney/Client ; to Richard Schulkins Privilege as it is a ID communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 90. 0907 E-Mail from Richard 02/21/03 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work CFE AI Seaman re: status of Product as it is a litigation communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 91. 0908 E-Mail from Richard 02/21/03 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work ID Seaman Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 92. 0909-0912 Letter from Tom Seaman 02/19/03 Attorney/Client ; to Jon Sands with Privilege as it is a ID attached documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 93. 0915-0926 E-Mail from Jon Sands to 02/14/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman with Privilege and Work CFE AI attached documents and Product as it is a handwritten notes of communication Tom Seaman between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 94. 0934-0943 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/12/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Jon Privilege and Work CFE AI Sands with attached Product as it is a documents and fax cover communication sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 95. 0956-0970 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/11/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Jon Privilege and Work ID Sands with attached Product as it is a documents and fax cover communication sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 96. 0972-0974 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/10/03 Attorney/Client ; Terri Taylor to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins and Jon Sands communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 97. 0983-0990 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/10/03 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti to Richard Privilege and Work CFE, AI ID Schulkins, Jon Sands and Product as it is a Brian Arakaki with communication attached documents and between State Farm's fax cover sheets legal counsel and State Farm representatives that The SM notes consists of mental that counsel impressions, included Bates conclusions, no. 0997-1001 in opinions, or legal the materials theories. without including same in the PL. They are hereby; Disclosed; ID 98. 1006-1011 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/07/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins and Jon Sands communication with attached documents between State Farm's The SM notes and fax cover sheets legal counsel. that counsel included Bates nos. 1031-1033 in the materials without including same in the PL. They are hereby; Disclosed; ID 99. 1034-1042 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/07/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Jon Privilege and Work AI ID Sands and Richard Product as it is a Schulkins with attached communication documents and fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 100. 1043 E-Mail from Richard 02/07/03 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Jon Sands, Privilege and Work P David Murphy and Tom Product as it is a Seaman communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 101. 1044-1051 E-Mail from Jon Sands to 02/07/03 Attorney/Client ; Richard Schulkins, David Privilege and Work CFE, AI ID Murphy and Tom Product as it is a Seaman with attached communication documents between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 102. 1052-1065 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/06/03 Attorney/Client ; Jon Sands to Tom Privilege and Work ID Seaman with attached Product as it is a documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 103. 1066-1072 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/06/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege and Work ID Schulkins and Jon Sands Product as it is a with attached documents communication and fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 104. 1073-1079 E-Mail from Jon Sands to 02/06/03 Attorney/Client ; Richard Schulkins, David Privilege and Work AI Murphy and Tom Product as it is a Seaman with attached communication documents between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 105. 1080-1084 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/06/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege and Work AI ID Schulkins and Jon Sands Product as it is a with attached documents communication and fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 106. 1087-1090 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/05/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege and Work ID Schulkins and Jon Sands Product as it is a re: status of litigation communication with attached fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 107. 1091-1093 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/05/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins and Jon Sands communication with attached fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel. 108. 1094-1096 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/04/03 Attorney/Client 1094 Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege and Work ; Schulkins and Jon Sands Product as it is a P communication between State Farm's 1095-1096 legal counsel that ; consists of mental ID impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 109. 1097-1098 Letter from Greg 02/04/03 Attorney/Client ; Giometti to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 110. 1099-1100 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/04/03 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 111. 1110 E-Mail from Richard 06/23/04 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work P Seaman and David Product as it is a Murphy communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 112. 1111-1115 E-Mail from Richard 06/08/04 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work ID Seaman and David Product as it is a Murphy with attached communication documents between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 113. 1116-1118 Fax Cover Sheet from 04/08/04 Attorney/Client ; Richard Schulkins to Privilege as it is a ID Tom Seaman with communication attached documents between State Farm's legal counsel. 114. 1119 E-Mail from Richard 03/19/04 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege as it is a ID Seaman communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 115. 1120 E-Mail from Richard 03/19/04 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work AI Seaman Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 116. 1122-1123 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/24/04 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 117. 1124-1137 E-Mail from Richard 02/20/04 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Jon Sands, Privilege and Work P Tom Seaman and David Product as it is a Murphy with attached communication documents between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 118. 1138-1139 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/17/04 Attorney/Client ; Terri Taylor to Richard Privilege and Work ID Schulkins with attached Product as it is a fax cover sheets communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 119. 1140-1141 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/13/04 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins with attached communication fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel. 120. 1142-1144 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/09/04 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins and Jon Sands communication with attached fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel. 121. 1145-1150 Letter from Tom Seaman 02/05/04 Attorney/Client 1145-1146 to Richard Schulkins re: Privilege and Work ; status of litigation and Product as it is a P attached fax cover sheets communication between State Farm's 1147-1150 legal counsel that ; consists of mental ID impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 122. 1151-1153 Fax Cover Sheet from 07/29/03 Attorney/Client ; Terri Taylor to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins and Jon Sands communication with attached fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel. 123. 1154-1156 Fax Cover Sheet from 07/21/03 Attorney/Client ; Terri Taylor to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins and Jon Sands communication with attached fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel. 124. 1157 E-Mail from Richard 07/11/03 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege as it is a P Seaman communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 125. 1158-1161 Fax Cover Sheet from 07/08/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Jon Privilege as it is a ID Sands with attached fax communication cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel. 126. 1163 E-Mail from Richard 07/07/03 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Jon Sands Privilege as it is a P communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 127. 1164-1168 Fax Cover Sheet from 07/07/03 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman to Jon Privilege and Work 1166-1168 Sands with attached Product as it is a ; documents communication P between State Farm's legal counsel that 1164-1165 consists of mental ; impressions, ID conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 128. 1169-1181 Fax Cover Sheet from 07/07/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Brian Privilege and Work ID Arakaki with attached Product as it is a documents and fax cover communication sheets between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 129. 1182-1197 Fax Cover Sheet from 06/30/03 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman to Jon Privilege and Work ; Sands, Richard Schulkins Product as it is a ID and Brian Arakaki with communication attached documents and between State Farm's fax cover sheets legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 130. 1198-1200 Fax Cover Sheet from 06/26/03 Attorney/Client ; Terri Taylor to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins and Jon Sands communication with attached fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel. 131. 1201-(1221) E-Mail from Jon Sands to 06/19/03 Attorney/Client ; Richard Schulkins and Privilege and Work CFE, AI ID Tom Seaman with Product as it is a attached documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 132. 1220-1221 Letter from Tom Seaman 07/17/03 Attorney/Client ; to Jon Sands Privilege and Work P Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 133. 1223-1260 Fax Cover Sheet from 06/13/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Jon Privilege and Work CFE AI Sands with attached Product as it is a documents and fax cover communication sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 134. 1261 E-Mail from Richard 06/13/03 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work P Seaman and Jon Sands Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 135. 1262 E-Mail from Richard 06/13/03 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Jon Sands Privilege and Work P and Tom Seaman Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 136. 1263 Fax Cover Sheet from 06/13/03 Attorney/Client ; Jon Sands to Tom Privilege as it is a ID Seaman communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 137. 1265-1267 Fax Cover Sheet from 05/16/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins and Jon Sands communication with attached fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel. 138. 1268-1270 Fax Cover Sheet from 05/15/03 Attorney/Client ; Terri Taylor to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins and Jon Sands communication with attached fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel. 139. 1272-1288 Fax Cover Sheet from 05/08/03 Attorney/Client ; Jon Sands to Richard Privilege and Work P Schulkins and Tom Product as it is a Seaman communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 140. 1290-1292 Fax Cover Sheet from 05/02/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins and Jon Sands communication with attached fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel. 141. 1293-1295 Fax Cover Sheet from 05/02/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege and Work CFE, AI ID Schulkins and Jon Sands Product as it is a with attached fax cover communication sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 142. 1296-1303 Fax Cover Sheet from 05/01/03 Attorney/Client ; Jon Sands to Richard Privilege and Work CFE Schulkins and Tom Product as it is a Seaman with attached communication documents between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 143. 1304-1312 Fax Cover Sheet from 04/30/03 Attorney/Client ; Jon Sands to Richard Privilege and Work CFE ID Schulkins and Tom Product as it is a Seaman with attached communication documents between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 144. 1315-1318 Fax Cover Sheet from 04/28/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Jon Privilege as it is a ID Sands, Richard Schulkins communication and Brian Arakaki with between State Farm's attached fax cover sheets legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 145. 1319-1321 Fax Cover Sheet from 04/28/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins and Brian communication Arakaki with attached between State Farm's fax cover sheets legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 146. 1332-1334 Fax Cover Sheet from 04/15/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins and Brian communication Arakaki with attached between State Farm's fax cover sheets legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 147. 1335-1340 E-Mail from Jon Sands to 04/23/03 Attorney/Client ; Richard Schulkins and Privilege and Work CFE ID Tom Seaman with Product as it is a attached documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 148. 1341-1350 Letter from Tom Seaman 04/22/03 Attorney/Client ; to Jon Sands with Privilege and Work ID attached documents Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 149. 1351 Letter from Kim 04/21/03 Attorney/Client ; Sutherland, paralegal for Privilege as it is a ID Jon Sands, to Tom communication Seaman between State Farm's legal counsel. 150. 1354 E-Mail from Richard 04/18/03 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege as it is a CFE ID Seaman communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 151. 1355-1362 Letter from Tom Seaman 04/17/03 Attorney/Client ; to Richard Schulkins and Privilege and Work CFE ID Jon Sands re: status of Product as it is a litigation with attached communication fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 152. 1363-1372 Fax Cover Sheet from 04/16/03 Attorney/Client ; Jon Sands to Richard Privilege and Work CFE ID Schulkins and Tom Product as it is a Seaman with attached communication documents between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 153. 1373-1387 Fax Cover Sheet from 04/09/03 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege and Work CFE ID Schulkins and Jon Sands Product as it is a with attached documents communication and fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 154. 1412-1417 Fax Cover Sheet from 05/20/05 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Jon Privilege as it is a ID Sands and Richard communication Schulkins with attached between State Farm's documents and fax cover legal counsel. sheets 155. 1418 E-Mail from Jon Sands to 05/17/05 Attorney/Client ; Richard Schulkins and Privilege as it is a P Tom Seaman communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 156. 1419 E-Mail from Richard 05/17/05 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege as it is a P Seaman and Jon Sands communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 157. 1420-1421 E-Mail from Jon Sands to 05/16/05 Attorney/Client ; Richard Schulkins, Tom Privilege and Work CFE Seaman, Susan Product as it is a Singleton, Auto Section communication Manager, and Dave between State Farm's Eaton re: status of legal counsel and litigation State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 158. 1422-1434 E-Mail from Jon Sands to 05/13/05 Attorney/Client ; Richard Schulkins and Privilege and Work CFE ID Tom Seaman with Product as it is a attached documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 159. 1435-1461 E-Mail from Jon Sands to 05/04/05 Attorney/Client ; Richard Schulkins, Tom Privilege and Work P Seaman and Dave Eaton Product as it is a with attached documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 160. 1462-1465 E-Mail from Jon Sands to 05/04/05 Attorney/Client Richard Schulkins, Dave Privilege and Work P Eaton and Tom Seaman Product as it is a with attached documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 161. 1466-1467 E-Mail from Diane 05/04/05 Attorney/Client Adams, secretary for Privilege as it is a ID Richard Schulkins, to communication Richard Schulkins, between State Farm's Carley Cross, paralegal legal counsel. for Jon Sands, Jon Sands and Terri Taylor 162. 1468 E-Mail from Richard 05/04/05 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work P Seaman, Dave Eaton and Product as it is a Jon Sands communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 163. 1469-1478 Fax Cover Sheet from 05/03/05 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman to Jon Privilege as it is a ID Sands with attached communication documents and fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 164. 1479 E-Mail from Diane 05/03/05 Attorney/Client Adams to Terri Taylor Privilege as it is a ID communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 165. 1480 E-Mail from Jon Sands to 04/29/05 Attorney/Client Richard Schulkins and Privilege and Work P Tom Seaman Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 166. 1481 E-Mail from Richard 04/28/05 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Jon Sands Privilege and Work P and Tom Seaman Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 167. 1484-1486 E-Mail from Richard 12/10/04 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work P Seaman and Jon Sands Product as it is a with attached documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 168. 1487-1488 Fax Cover Sheet from 12/10/04 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins with attached communication fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel. 169. 1491-1492 Fax Cover Sheet from 08/09/04 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege and Work ID Schulkins with attached Product as it is a fax cover sheets communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 170. 1493-1498 Letter from Tom Seaman 08/02/04 Attorney/Client to Richard Schulkins re: Privilege and Work P status of litigation with Product as it is a attached fax cover sheets communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 171. 1499-1501 Letter from Tom Seaman 08/02/04 Attorney/Client to Marilyn Smith, Auto Privilege and Work ID Team Manager, re: status Product as it is a of litigation communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 172. 1502 Letter from David 07/26/04 Attorney/Client Murphy to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki, Steve Baird and communication Richard Schulkins between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 173. 1504 Letter from David 07/14/04 Attorney/Client Murphy to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki, Steve Baird and communication Richard Schulkins between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 174. 1506 E-Mail from David 07/14/04 Attorney/Client Murphy to Richard Privilege and Work P Schulkins and Tom Product as it is a Seaman communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 175. 1507-1518 E-Mail from David 07/12/04 Attorney/Client Murphy to Richard Privilege and Work P Schulkins, Jon Sands and Product as it is a Tom Seaman with communication attached documents between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 176. 1519-1520 E-Mail from Richard 07/07/04 Attorney/Client Schulkins to David Privilege and Work P Murphy Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 177. 1521-1522 Fax Cover Sheet from 07/06/04 Attorney/Client David Murphy to Privilege as it is a ID Richard Schulkins, Jon communication Sands and Brian Arakaki between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 178. 1523-1524 Fax Cover Sheet from 07/06/04 Attorney/Client David Murphy to Privilege as it is a ID Richard Schulkins, Jon communication Sands and Brian Arakaki between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 179. 1525-1538 Letter from Carley Cross 07/02/04 Attorney/Client to Dave Murphy with Privilege as it is a ID attached documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 180. 1539-1601 Letter from Carley Cross 07/02/04 Attorney/Client to Tom Seaman with Privilege as it is a ID attached documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 181. 1602-1607 Fax Cover Sheet from 07/02/04 Attorney/Client Dave Murphy to Jon Privilege as it is a ID Sands with attached communication documents between State Farm's legal counsel. 182. 1610 Letter from Tom Seaman 11/15/02 Attorney/Client to Richard Schulkins Privilege as it is a ID communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 183. 1615-1640 Unredacted Activity Log Various Attorney/Client Notes from Thorne Privilege as they ID Claim File attached to include letter from Kathryn communications Phillips-Schwab, between Mr. Thorne paralegal for Robert and his attorney, John Baldwin, to Tom Seaman Rodman. dated 11/13/02 184. 1645-1647 Fax Cover Sheet from 11/14/02 Attorney/Client Greg Giometti to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins with attached communication fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel. 185. 1648-1651 Fax Memo from Richard 11/14/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Eric Miller, Privilege and Work P Auto Section Manager, Product as it is a and Greg Giometti communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 186. 1652-1654 Fax Memo from Richard 11/14/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Greg Privilege and Work P Giometti Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 187. 1655 Fax Memo from Richard 11/14/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Greg Privilege and Work P Giometti Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 188. 1656-1673 Fax Cover Sheet from 11/13/02 Attorney/Client Greg Giometti to Richard Privilege and Work ID Schulkins with attached Product as it is a documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 189. 1674-1675 Fax Memo from Richard 11/12/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Greg Privilege and Work P Giometti Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 190. 1676-(1681) Fax Memo from Richard 11/12/02 Attorney/Client 1678 Schulkins to Greg Privilege and Work AI ID Giometti Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 191. 1722-1725 Fax Cover Sheet from 11/08/02 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Dyann Privilege and Work P Schieltz, Auto Claim Product as it is a Representative, with communication attached documents and between State Farm's fax cover sheets legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 192. 1726-1727 Fax Cover Sheet from 11/06/02 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Dyann Privilege as it is a ID Schieltz and fax cover communication sheets between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 193. 1731-1746 Letter from Greg 11/06/02 Attorney/Client ; Giometti to Richard Privilege and Work AI ID Schulkins with attached Product as it is a documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 194. 1767-1770 Fax Cover Sheet from 10/31/02 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Richard Privilege and Work ID Schulkins, Brian Arakaki Product as it is a and Michelle Mancias communication with attached fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 195. 1772-1785 Fax Cover Sheet from 10/28/02 Attorney/Client ; Karl Chambers to Privilege and Work ID Richard Schulkins with Product as it is a attached documents and communication fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 196. 1786-1794 Fax Memo from Richard 10/28/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Karl Privilege and Work CFE, AI ID Chambers with attached Product as it is a document communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 197. 1795-1796 Fax Memo from Richard 10/26/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Karl Privilege and Work CFE, AI ID Chambers with attached Product as it is a documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 198. (1799) Fax Memo from Richard 10/26/02 Attorney/Client ; -1798 Schulkins to Karl Privilege and Work CFE, AI ID Chambers with attached Product as it is a documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 199. 1799 E-Mail from Richard 10/26/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work P Seaman Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 200. 1800-1813 Fax Cover Sheet from 10/25/02 Attorney/Client ; Karl Chambers to Privilege and Work CFE, AI ID Richard Schulkins with Product as it is a attached documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 201. 1814 E-Mail from Richard 10/24/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work ID Seaman and David Product as it is a Murphy communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 202. 1819-1820 Letter from Tom Seaman 10/23/02 Attorney/Client ; to Richard Schulkins re: Privilege and Work ID status of litigation Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 203. 1821-1826 Letter from Tom Seaman 10/23/02 Attorney/Client ; to Susan West, Auto Privilege and Work P Claim Representative Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 204. 1827-1832 Letter from Tom Seaman 10/23/02 Attorney/Client ; to Dyann Schieltz Privilege and Work P Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 205. 1833-1838 Letter from Tom Seaman 10/23/02 Attorney/Client ; to Deb Plouffe, Auto Privilege and Work P Claim Representative Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 206. 1846-1853 Letter from Tom Seaman 10/22/02 Attorney/Client ; to Steve Baird Privilege and Work P Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 207. 1870-1873 E-Mail from Richard 10/20/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work CFE, AI Seaman with attached Product as it is a documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 208. 1874 Letter from Tom Seaman 10/18/02 Attorney/Client ; to Richard Schulkins Privilege as it is a ID communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 209. 1875-1882 Letter from Tom Seaman 10/18/02 Attorney/Client ; to Richard Schulkins, Privilege and Work AI ID Brian Arakaki and Product as it is a Michelle Mancias with communication attached documents between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 210. 1886 Fax Memo from Richard 10/16/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Greg Privilege and Work P Giometti Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 211. 1893-(1929) Fax Cover Sheet from 12/10/02 Attorney/Client ; Michelle Mancias to Karl Privilege and Work P Chambers with attached Product as it is a documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 212. 1944-1948 Letter from Greg 12/05/02 Attorney/Client ; Giometti to Richard Privilege and Work CFE AI Schulkins re: status of Product as it is a litigation with attached communication fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 213. 1949-1950 Fax Cover Sheet from 12/06/02 Attorney/Client ; Karl Chambers to Privilege as it is a ID Michelle Mancias with communication attached fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel. 214. 1951-1954 Fax Cover Sheet from 12/05/02 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins, Michelle communication Mancias and Brian between State Farm's Arakaki with attached legal counsel and fax cover sheets State Farm representatives. 215. 1961-1968 Letter from Karl 12/05/02 Attorney/Client ; Chambers to Michelle Privilege and Work P Mancias with attached Product as it is a fax cover sheets communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 216. 1969-1971 Fax Cover Sheet from 12/04/02 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins and Brian communication Arakaki with attached between State Farm's fax cover sheets legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 217. 1992-1993 Fax Cover Sheet from 12/04/02 Attorney/Client ; Terri Taylor to Diane, Privilege as it is a ID secretary for Richard communication Schulkins with attached between State Farm's fax cover sheets legal counsel. 218. 1998-2003 Letter from Tom Seaman 12/03/02 Attorney/Client ; to Deb Plouffe with Privilege as it is a ID attached documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 219. 2004-2008 Letter from Tom Seaman 12/03/02 Attorney/Client ; to Susan West with Privilege as it is a ID attached documents and communication fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 220. 2009-(2018) Letter from Tom Seaman 12/03/02 Attorney/Client ; to Dyann Schieltz with Privilege as it is a ID attached documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 221. ; ID 222. 2019 Letter from Greg 12/03/02 Attorney/Client ; Giometti to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 223. 2040-2041 Fax Cover Sheet from 12/02/02 Attorney/Client ; Karl Chambers to Privilege as it is a ID Richard Schulkins communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 224. 2044 Fax Memo from Richard 12/01/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Greg Privilege and Work ID Giometti and Tom Product as it is a Seaman communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 225. 2045 Fax Memo from Richard 12/01/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Karl Privilege and Work P Chambers Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 226. 2052-2053 Fax Cover Sheet from 11/27/02 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 227. 2056-2064 Fax Memo from Richard 11/27/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Greg Privilege and Work P Giometti and Tom Product as it is a Seaman with attached communication documents between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 228. 2075 Fax Cover Sheet from 11/26/02 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 229. 2079 Fax Memo from Richard 11/25/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work ID Seaman Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 230. 2084-2089 Fax Memo from Richard 11/23/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Karl Privilege and Work AI ID Chambers, Greg Product as it is a Giometti and Tom communication Seaman with attached between State Farm's documents legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 231. 2090-2094 Fax Memo from Richard 11/23/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Karl Privilege as it is a ID Chambers, Greg communication Giometti and Tom between State Farm's Seaman with attached legal counsel. documents 232. 2098-2099 Letter from Tom Seaman 11/21/02 Attorney/Client ; to Richard Schulkins Privilege as it is a ID with attached documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 233. 2105-2112 Letter from Karl 11/19/02 Attorney/Client 2105-2106 Chambers to Richard Privilege as it is a ; Schulkins with attached communication P documents and fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel. 2107-2112 ; ID 234. 2113-2119 Fax Memo from Richard 11/19/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Karl Privilege and Work ID Chambers with attached Product as it is a documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 235. 2120-2121 Fax Memo from Richard 11/19/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work P Seaman and Greg Product as it is a Giometti communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 236. 2126-2127 Fax Cover Sheet from 11/18/02 Attorney/Client ; Terri Taylor to Richard Privilege as it is a ID Schulkins with attached communication fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel. 237. 2128-2129 Fax Cover Sheet from 11/18/02 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Michael Privilege as it is a ID McCarthy, Faegre communication Benson, attorney for between State Farm's State Farm legal counsel. 238. 2133-2138 Letter from Greg 12/31/02 Attorney/Client ; Giometti to Richard Privilege and Work ID Schulkins with attached Product as it is a documents and fax cover communication sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 239. 2139-2143 Letter from Greg 12/31/02 Attorney/Client 2139-2140 Giometti to Richard Privilege and Work ; Schulkins re: status of Product as it is a P litigation with attached communication fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that 2141-2143 consists of mental ; impressions, ID conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 240. 2144 E-Mail from Michael 12/31/02 Attorney/Client ; McCarthy to David Privilege and Work ID Murphy and Joseph Product as it is a Nistico re: litigation communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 241. 2160-2161 Letter from David 12/30/02 Attorney/Client ; Murphy to Joseph Privilege as it is a ID Nistico with attached communication FedEx receipt between State Farm's legal counsel. 242. 2162-2186 Letter from Greg 12/30/02 Attorney/Client ; Giometti to Richard Privilege and Work ID Schulkins with attached Product as it is a documents and fax cover communication sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 243. 2189 E-Mail from Joseph 12/30/02 Attorney/Client ; Nistico to David Murphy Privilege and Work ID Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 244. 2192 E-Mail from Richard 12/27/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Brian Privilege and Work CFE Arakaki and copied to Product as it is a Dave Eaton, Jon Sands, communication Tom Seaman and Kent between State Farm's Gorsuch legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 245. 2193-2215 Fax Cover Sheet from 12/27/02 Attorney/Client ; Karl Chambers to Privilege and Work AI ID Richard Schulkins with Product as it is a attached documents and communication fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 246. 2216-2240 Fax Memo from Richard 12/27/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Karl Privilege and Work CFE AI Chambers and Greg Product as it is a Giometti with attached communication documents between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 247. 2241-2242 Letter from Richard 12/21/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Jon Sands Privilege and Work AI ID Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 248. 2243-2248 Letter from Karl 12/26/02 Attorney/Client ; Chambers to Richard Privilege and Work ID Schulkins with attached Product as it is a documents and fax cover communication sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 249. 2261 Fax Memo from Richard 12/24/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Karl Privilege and Work P Chambers Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 250. 2262-2266 Fax Memo from Richard 12/23/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Greg Privilege and Work CFE AI Giometti and Karl Product as it is a Chambers with attached communication documents between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 251. 2293-2297 E-Mail from Richard 12/23/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work P Seaman with attached Product as it is a documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 252. 2298-2299 Fax Memo from Richard 12/20/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Karl Privilege and Work P Chambers Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 253. 2304-2311 Fax Cover Sheet from 12/19/02 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti to Richard Privilege and Work P Schulkins with attached Product as it is a documents and fax cover communication sheets between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 254. 2312-2315 Fax Cover Sheet from 12/18/02 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti to Dave Privilege and Work AI ID Eaton and Brian Arakaki Product as it is a with attached documents communication and fax cover sheets between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 255. 2316-2325 Letter from Greg 12/18/02 Attorney/Client ; Giometti to Dave Eaton Privilege and Work CFE AI and Brian Arakaki re: Product as it is a status of litigation with communication attached Fax Cover between State Farm's Sheets legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 256. 2332-2350 Letter from Tom Seaman 12/16/02 Attorney/Client ; to Richard Schulkins Privilege and Work ID with attached documents Product as it is a and fax cover sheets communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 257. 2354-2357 Fax Cover Sheet from 12/13/02 Attorney/Client ; Sam Linsenmaier, Privilege as it is a ID paralegal for Greg communication Giometti, to Steve Baird between State Farm's with attached documents legal counsel and and fax cover sheets State Farm representatives. 258. 2370-2374 Letter from Greg 12/12/02 Attorney/Client ; Giometti to Richard Privilege and Work ID Schulkins with attached Product as it is a Fax Cover Sheets communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 259. 2395-2423 Letter from Greg 12/11/02 Attorney/Client ; Giometti to Richard Privilege and Work CFE AI Schulkins re: status of Product as it is a litigation with attached communication documents and fax cover between State Farm's sheets legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 260. 2435 Handwritten notes of 05/31/05 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman re: Privilege as it is a ID conversation with Jon communication Sands between State Farm's legal counsel. 261. 2436-2442 Handwritten notes of Undated Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman re: status of (post- Privilege and Work P litigation filing of Product as it consists litigation of mental based on impressions, content) conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 262. 2443-2461 Handwritten notes of 12/18/02 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman re: John Privilege and Work P Rodman deposition Product as it consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 263. 2462-2463 Handwritten notes of 05/20/05 Attorney/Client ; David Murphy re: Privilege and Work P conference with Richard Product as it is a Schulkins communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 264. 2464-2465 E-Mail from Jon Sands to 05/17/05 Attorney/Client ; Richard Schulkins and Privilege and Work ID Tom Seaman and copied Product as it is a to David Murphy communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 265. 2466 E-Mail from Jon Sands to 05/17/05 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman and Privilege and Work ID Richard Schulkins and Product as it is a copied to David Murphy communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 266. 2467-2468 E-Mail from Jon Sands to 05/16/05 Attorney/Client ; Richard Schulkins, Tom Privilege and Work CFE AI Seaman, Susan Singleton Product as it is a and Dave Eaton and communication copied to David Murphy between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 267. 2469 E-Mail from Jon Sands to 05/16/05 Attorney/Client ; Richard Schulkins and Privilege and Work ID Tom Seaman and copied Product as it is a to David Murphy communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 268. 2470-2471 E-Mail from Jon Sands to 05/04/05 Attorney/Client ; Richard Schulkins, Tom Privilege and Work ID Seaman and Dave Eaton Product as it is a and copied to David communication Murphy between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 269. 2472-2473 E-Mail from Jon Sands to 05/04/05 Attorney/Client ; Richard Schulkins, Tom Privilege and Work P Seaman and Dave Eaton Product as it is a and copied to David communication Murphy between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 270. 2474 E-Mail from Richard 05/04/05 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work ID Seaman, Dave Eaton and Product as it is a Jon Sands and copied to communication David Murphy between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 271. 2475 Handwritten notes of 12/29/04 Attorney/Client ; David Murphy re: Privilege and Work P conference call with Product as it is a Richard Schulkins, Tom communication Seaman, Dave Eaton and between State Farm's Jon Sands legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 272. 2477-2525 Case law Work Product as it ; pertains to ID communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives and consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 273. 2526 Handwritten notes of 02/24/04 Attorney/Client ; David Murphy re: Privilege and Work P conference call with Product as it is a Richard Schulkins, Jon communication Sands, Tom Seaman, and between State Farm's Michelle Mancias legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 274. 2527 E-Mail from Terri Taylor 02/17/04 Attorney/Client ; to Tom Seaman Privilege as it is a ID communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 275. 2528 E-Mail from Terri Taylor 02/13/04 Attorney/Client ; to Tom Seaman and Privilege as it is a ID David Murphy communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 276. 2529 E-Mail from Terri Taylor 02/10/04 Attorney/Client ; to Tom Seaman and Privilege as it is a ID David Murphy communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 277. 2530 E-Mail from Terri Taylor 11/07/03 Attorney/Client ; to Tom Seaman and Privilege as it is a ID David Murphy communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 278. 2531-2549 E-Mail from Jon Sands to 06/19/03 Attorney/Client As Before Richard Schulkins and Privilege and Work Tom Seaman with Product as it is a handwritten notes of communication Tom Seaman and between State Farm's attached documents legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 279. 2550 E-Mail from Terri Taylor 05/07/03 Attorney/Client ; to Tom Seaman and Privilege as it is a ID David Murphy communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 280. 2551 E-Mail from Terri Taylor 04/28/03 Attorney/Client ; to Tom Seaman and Privilege as it is a ID David Murphy communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 281. 2552 E-Mail from Richard 04/18/03 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work ID Seaman with handwritten Product as it is a notes of Tom Seaman communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 282. 2553 E-Mail from Terri Taylor 03/10/03 Attorney/Client ; to Tom Seaman and Privilege as it is a ID David Murphy communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 283. 2554 E-Mail from Terri Taylor 03/06/03 Attorney/Client ; to Tom Seaman and Privilege as it is a ID David Murphy communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 284. 2555 E-Mail from Terri Taylor 03/06/03 Attorney/Client ; to Tom Seaman and Privilege as it is a ID David Murphy communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 285. 2556 E-Mail from Terri Taylor 02/27/03 Attorney/Client ; to Tom Seaman and Privilege as it is a ID David Murphy communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 286. 2557-2560 Handwritten notes of Undated Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman (post- Privilege and Work P filing of Product as it consists litigation of mental based on impressions, content) conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 287. 2561 Handwritten notes of 02/12/03 Attorney/Client ; David Murphy re: Privilege and Work P conference call with Jon Product as it is a Sands, Bruce Kaye, communication attorney for Greg between State Farm's Giometti and Karl legal counsel that Chambers, Greg consists of mental Giometti and Karl impressions, Chambers conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 288. 2562 Memo from Mark 02/10/03 Attorney/Client ; Jachimiak, attorney at Privilege and Work P SGM, to Greg Giometti Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 289. 2563-2565 Handwritten notes of 02/05/03 Attorney/Client ; David Murphy re: Privilege and Work P conference call with Product as it is a Greg Giometti, Tom communication Seaman, Richard between State Farm's Schulkins, and Jon Sands legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 290. 2566 Handwritten notes of Undated Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti (post- Privilege and Work P filing of Product as it consists litigation of mental based on impressions, content) conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 291. 2567-2568 Handwritten notes of 02/05/03 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti Privilege and Work P Product as it consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 292. 2569-2570 Handwritten notes of 02/03/03 Attorney/Client David Murphy re: Privilege and Work P conference call with Product as it is a Richard Schulkins, Brian communication Arakaki, Jon Sands and between State Farm's Dave Eaton legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 293. 2571 Handwritten notes of 01/30/03 Attorney/Client David Murphy re: Privilege and Work P conference with Richard Product as it is a Schulkins, Tom Seaman, communication and Jon Sands between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 294. 2572-2575 Draft Motion to Dismiss Work Product as it Counterclaim of Yoon pertains to ID Boon Lee communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives and consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 295. 2577 E-Mail from Mary Byrd 01/27/03 Attorney/Client Dryden, secretary for Privilege and Work ID Greg Giometti, re: Product as it is a telephone call from communication Bruce Kaye, attorney for between State Farm's Karl Chambers and Greg legal counsel that Giometti consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 296. 2578 E-Mail from Paula Undated Attorney/Client O'Konski to Greg (post- Privilege as it is a ID Giometti, Karl filing of communication Chambers, Mary Frangis, litigation between State Farm's Sarah Christiansen and based on legal counsel. Terri Taylor content) 297. 2579 E-Mail from Mary Byrd 01/14/03 Attorney/Client Dryden, re: telephone Privilege as it is a ID call from Steve Baird communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm's representatives. 298. 2580-2581 Handwritten notes of Undated Attorney/Client Mary Frangis (post- Privilege and Work ID filing of Product as it is a litigation communication based on between State Farm's content) legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 299. 2582 E-Mail from Marlene 01/07/03 Attorney/Client Beliveau, Faegre Privilege as it is a ID Benson, to Paula communication O'Konski with between State Farm's handwritten notes of legal counsel. Mary Frangis 300. 2586 E-Mail from Joseph 12/30/02 Attorney/Client Nistico to David Murphy Privilege and Work ID Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 301. 2587 E-Mail from Terri Taylor 12/19/02 Attorney/Client to David Murphy and Privilege and Work P Greg Giometti Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 302. 2588 Memo to File from Mary 12/13/02 Attorney/Client Byrd Dryden Privilege as it is a ID communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. 303. 2589-2602 Handwritten notes of Undated Attorney/Client Mary Frangis to Tom (post- Privilege and Work ID Seaman, with attached filing of Product as it is a documents litigation communication based on between State Farm's content) legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 304. 2603-2605 Draft letter from Tom 11/18/02 Attorney/Client Seaman to John Grund Privilege and Work P with handwritten notes of Product as it is a Greg Giometti and Tom communication Seaman between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 305. 2606-2640 Miscellaneous Correspondence in P unrelated litigation — misfiled 306. 2641 Handwritten note from 11/21/02 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman to Mary Privilege and Work ID Frangis Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 307. 2642-2647 Handwritten notes of 11/15/02 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman re: hearing Privilege and Work AI before Judge Kane Product as it consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 308. 2648 E-Mail from Terri Taylor 11/15/02 Attorney/Client to Mary Frangis re: Privilege as it is a ID telephone call from communication Laura Hartford, Court between State Farm's Reporter legal counsel. 309. 2649 Handwritten note from 11/13/02 Attorney/Client David Murphy to Tom Privilege and Work P Seaman Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 310. 2650 E-Mail from Terri Taylor 11/08/02 Attorney/Client to Greg Giometti, Jon Privilege as it is a ID Halaby, Karl Chambers, communication Mary Frangis and Paula between State Farm's O'Konski and copied to legal counsel. Tom Seaman 311. 2651 E-Mail from Terri Taylor 11/08/02 Attorney/Client to Greg Giometti, Jon Privilege as it is a ID Halaby, Karl Chambers, communication Mary Frangis and Paula between State Farm's O'Konski and copied to legal counsel. Tom Seaman 312. 2652-2662 Draft Motion with 11/ — /02 Attorney/Client handwritten notes Privilege and Work AI Product as it consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 313. 2663 Handwritten note of Tom Undated Attorney/Client Seaman to Terri Taylor (post- Privilege as it is a ID filing of communication litigation between State Farm's based on legal counsel. content) 314. 2664 E-Mail from Mary 10/21/02 Attorney/Client Dryden to Greg Giometti Privilege as it is a ID re: telephone call from communication Rob Baldwin between State Farm's legal counsel. 315. 2665-2675 Draft Discovery Undated Attorney/Client (post- Privilege and Work ID filing of Product as it consists litigation of mental based on impressions, content) conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 316. 2676 E-Mail from Mary 10/10/02 Attorney/Client Frangis to Jon Halaby Privilege as it is a ID communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 317. 2677 E-Mail from Mary 10/07/02 Attorney/Client Dryden to Tom Seaman Privilege as it is a ID re: telephone call from communication Rich Kaudy between State Farm's legal counsel. 318. 2678 E-Mail from Terri Taylor 10/02/03 Attorney/Client to Greg Giometti, Jon Privilege as it is a ID Halaby, Karl Chambers, communication Mary Frangis, and Paula between State Farm's O'Konski legal counsel. 319. 2679-2680 Handwritten notes of Undated Attorney/Client Greg Giometti (post- Privilege and Work P filing of Product as it consists litigation of mental based on impressions, content) conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 320. 2681 Handwritten notes of 09/18/02 Attorney/Client Mary Frangis Privilege and Work ID Product as it consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 321. 2682-2686 Handwritten notes of 08/26/02 Work Product as it Tom Seaman re: consists of mental P conference call with impressions, Richard Kaudy, Fred conclusions, Paoli, Rob Baldwin and opinions, or legal Greg Giometti theories. 322. 2687-2689 Handwritten notes of 09/30/02 Attorney/Client Mary Frangis Privilege and Work ID Product as it consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 323. 2690 E-Mail from Mary 08/15/02 Attorney/Client Dryden to Greg Giometti Privilege as it is a ID re: telephone call from communication Rich Kaudy between State Farm's legal counsel. 324. 2691 Memorandum from Paula 09/24/02 Attorney/Client O'Konski to Tom Privilege as it is a ID Seaman, Greg Giometti, communication Mary Frangis, Karl between State Farm's Chambers and Jon legal counsel. Halaby 325. 2692 E-Mail from Mary 09/04/02 Attorney/Client Dryden to Tom Seaman Privilege as it is a ID re: telephone call from communication Rich Kaudy between State Farm's legal counsel. 326. 2693 Memorandum from Mark 09/16/02 Attorney/Client Jachimiak to Greg Privilege and Work P Giometti Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 327. 2694 Handwritten notes of Undated Attorney/Client Greg Giometti (post- Privilege and Work P filing of Product as it consists litigation of mental based on impressions, content) conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 328. 2695-2696 Handwritten notes of Undated Attorney/Client Tom Seaman (post- Privilege and Work AI filing of Product as it consists litigation of mental based on impressions, content) conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 329. 2697 Handwritten notes of 08/21/02 Attorney/Client Mary Frangis Privilege and Work AI Product as it consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 330. 2698-(2712) Draft letter to Dave 07/12/02 Attorney/Client Eaton with handwritten Privilege and Work CFE AI notes of Tom Seaman Product as it consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 331. CFE AI 332. 2713 Handwritten notes of 08/05/02 Attorney/Client Mary Frangis Privilege and Work ID Product as it consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 333. 2714-2715 Handwritten notes of Undated Attorney/Client Tom Seaman (post- Privilege and Work CFE AI filing of Product as it consists litigation of mental based on impressions, content) conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 334. 2716 Handwritten notes of 07/19/02 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman re: Privilege and Work AI conference with Dave Product as it is a Eaton, Brian Arakaki and communication Greg Giometti between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 335. 2926-2937 Letter from Greg 07/19/02 Attorney/Client Giometti to Dave Eaton Privilege and Work AI re: status of litigation and Product as it is a legal opinion communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 336. 2966-2686 Fax Cover Sheet from 07/17/02 Attorney/Client Steve Baird to Greg Privilege as it is a CFE Giometti with attached communication documents between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 337. 2987-3006 Fax Cover Sheet from 07/11/02 Attorney/Client Steve Baird to Greg Privilege as it is a CFE AI Giometti with attached communication documents between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 338. 3007-3381 Letter from Greg 09/27/02 Attorney/Client Giometti to Richard Privilege and Work AI Schulkins re: status of Product as it is a litigation with attached communication documents between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 339. 3382-3403 Confidential Settlement 07/15/99 Attorney/Client Conference Statement Privilege and Work P from John Rodman to Product as it is a Judge Richard C. communications by Davidson John Rodman, attorney representing Mr. Thorne, and contains conclusions, opinions, or legal theories; prepared in conjunction with a mediation and is confidential pursuant to C.R.S. § 13-22- 307. 340. 3404-3408 Confidential Settlement 10/18/99 Attorney/Client Conference Statement Privilege and Work P from John Rodman to Product as it is a Judge Richard C. communications by Davidson John Rodman, attorney representing Mr. Thorne, and contains conclusions, opinions, or legal theories; prepared in conjunction with a mediation and is confidential pursuant to C.R.S. § . 341. 3409-3414 Confidential Settlement 01/29/01 Attorney/Client Conference Statement Privilege and Work P from John Rodman to Product as it is a Judge Richard C. communications by Davidson John Rodman, attorney representing Mr. Thorne, and contains conclusions, opinions, or legal theories; prepared in conjunction with a mediation and is confidential pursuant to C.R.S. § . 342. 3513 SGM Cost Request from 05/05/03 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 343. 3514-3515 SGM Cost Request from 05/05/03 Attorney/Client David Murphy to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 344. 3516-3517 SGM Cost Request from 04/22/03 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman to Steve Privilege as it is a ID Baird with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 345. 3518-3519 SGM Cost Request from 04/08/03 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 346. 3520-3521 SGM Cost Request from 03/27/03 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 347. 3522-3525 SGM Cost Request from 02/24/03 Attorney/Client Greg Giometti to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 348. 3526-3528 SGM Cost Request from 02/24/03 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 349. 3529-3531 SGM Cost Request from 02/24/03 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 350. 3532-3533 SGM Cost Request from 02/14/03 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 351. 3534-3535 SGM Cost Request from 02/14/03 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 352. 3536-3537 SGM Cost Request from 02/04/03 Attorney/Client David Murphy to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 353. 3538-3539 SGM Cost Request from 01/30/03 Attorney/Client David Murphy to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 354. 3540-3541 SGM Cost Request from 01/14/03 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 355. 3542-3543 SGM Cost Request from 01/14/03 Attorney/Client Tom Seaman to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 356. 3544-3546 SGM Cost Request from 01/06/03 Attorney/Client Greg Giometti to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 357. 3547-(3558) Fax Cover Sheet from 01/09/03 Attorney/Client Terri Taylor to Toni Privilege as it is a ID Hilton, secretary to Brian communication Arakaki, with attached between State Farm SGM Cost Request dated representatives and 11/26/02 and fax cover State Farm's legal sheets counsel. 358. ID 359. 3559-3560 SGM Cost Request from 12/26/02 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 360. 3561-3565 Fax Cover Sheet from 02/19/03 Attorney/Client ; Terri Taylor to Toni Privilege as it is a ID Hilton with attached communication SGM Cost Request dated between State Farm 12/19/02 and fax cover representatives and sheets State Farm's legal counsel. 361. 3566-3567 SGM Cost Request from 12/13/02 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 362. 3568-3569 SGM Cost Request from 12/10/02 Attorney/Client ; Tom Seaman to Brian Privilege as it is a ID Arakaki with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 363. 3570-3571 SGM Cost Request from 12/06/02 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti to Steve Privilege as it is a ID Baird with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 364. 3572-3573 SGM Cost Request from 12/06/02 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti to Steve Privilege as it is a ID Baird with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 365. 3574-3575 SGM Cost Request from 12/03/02 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti to Steve Privilege as it is a ID Baird with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 366. 3576-3580 Fax Cover Sheet from 03/10/03 Attorney/Client ; Terri Taylor to Toni Privilege as it is a ID Hilton with attached communication SGM Cost Request dated between State Farm 11/27/02 and fax cover representatives and sheets State Farm's legal counsel. 367. 3581-3582 SGM Cost Request from 10/24/02 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti to Steve Privilege as it is a ID Baird with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 368. 3583-3584 SGM Cost Request from 10/24/02 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti to Steve Privilege as it is a ID Baird with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 369. 3585-3586 SGM Cost Request from 10/24/02 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti to Steve Privilege as it is a ID Baird with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 370. 3587-3588 SGM Cost Request from 10/23/02 Attorney/Client ; Greg Giometti to Steve Privilege as it is a ID Baird with attached communication invoice between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. 371. 3605-3619 Expense receipts for Various Credit Card Nos. ; David Murphy redacted. ID 372. 3631-3635 Fax Memo from Richard 12/23/02 Attorney/Client ; Schulkins to Greg Privilege and Work CFE AI Giometti and Karl Product as it is a Chambers with attached communication documents between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 373. 3663 Letter from Richard 12/21/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Jon Sands Privilege and Work AI ID Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 374. 3664 E-Mail from Richard 12/27/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Brian Privilege and Work CFE Arakaki and copied to Product as it is a Dave Eaton, Jon Sands, communication Tom Seaman and Kent between State Farm's Gorsuch legal counsel and State Farm representatives that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 375. 3665-3669 E-Mail from Richard 12/23/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work P Seaman Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 376. 3670-(3695) Fax Memo from Richard 12/27/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Karl Privilege and Work Chambers and Greg Product as it is a Giometti communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 377. 3704-3708 E-Mail from Richard 12/23/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work Seaman with attached Product as it is a documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 378. 3709-3710 Fax Memo from Richard 12/20/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Karl Privilege and Work Chambers Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 379. 3711-3732 E-Mail from Richard 10/24/03 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work Seaman and Karl Product as it is a Chambers with attached communication documents between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 380. 3746-3751 E-Mail from Richard 10/02/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to David Privilege and Work Murphy and Tom Product as it is a Seaman with attached communication documents between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 381. 3752-(3755) Fax Memo from Richard 10/03/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to David Privilege and Work Murphy with attached Product as it is a documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 382. 383. 3756-3758 E-Mail from Marie 10/01/02 Attorney/Client Williams, Faegre Privilege and Work Benson, to Richard Product as it is a Schulkins, Tom Seaman communication and David Murphy with between State Farm's attached documents legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 384. 3759 E-Mail from Marie 10/01/02 Attorney/Client Williams to Richard Privilege and Work Schulkins, Tom Seaman Product as it is a and David Murphy communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 385. 3760-3762 E-Mail from Marie 10/01/02 Attorney/Client Williams to Richard Privilege and Work Schulkins, Tom Seaman Product as it is a and David Murphy communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 386. 3763-3764 E-Mail from Richard 10/01/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Marie Privilege and Work Williams, Michael Product as it is a McCarthy and Tom communication Seaman between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 387. 3765-3766 E-Mail from Michael 10/01/02 Attorney/Client McCarthy to Richard Privilege and Work Schulkins, Marie Product as it is a Williams, and Tom communication Seaman between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 388. 3767 E-Mail from Marie 10/01/02 Attorney/Client Williams to Richard Privilege and Work Schulkins, Tom Seaman Product as it is a and David Murphy communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 389. 3768-3769 E-Mail from Richard 10/01/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to State Farm Privilege as it is a attorneys communication between State Farm's legal counsel and is unrelated to this case. 390. 3770 E-Mail from Richard 10/02/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work Seaman with E-mail Product as it is a from Dave Eaton to Kent communication Gorsuch, Counsel for between State Farm's State Farm, and Richard legal counsel that Schulkins consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 391. 3771 E-Mail from Richard 10/02/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Marc Levy Privilege as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 392. 3772 E-Mail from Richard 10/02/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Susan Privilege as it is a Lambdin communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 393. 3773 E-Mail from Richard 10/02/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Debra Privilege as it is a Sutton communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 394. 3774 E-Mail from Richard 10/02/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work Seaman with E-mail Product as it is a from Debra Sutton to communication Richard Schulkins between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 395. 3775-3776 E-Mail from Marie 10/02/02 Attorney/Client Williams to Tom Seaman Privilege and Work and David Murphy Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 396. 3778 E-Mail from Suzanne 10/02/02 Attorney/Client Lambdin to Richard Privilege as it is a Schulkins communication between State Farm's legal counsel. 397. 3779-3780 E-Mail from Richard 10/07/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work Seaman Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 398. 3783-3784 E-Mail from Richard 10/07/02 Attorney/Client Schulkins to Tom Privilege and Work Seaman Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 399. 3785-3789 Fax Cover Sheet from 10/07/02 Attorney/Client Richard Schulkins to Privilege and Work Tom Seaman with Product as it is a attached documents communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 400. 3794 Handwritten notes of Undated Attorney/Client Tom Seaman (post- Privilege and Work filing of Product as it consists litigation of mental based on impressions, content) conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 401. 3795-3799 Interoffice Memorandum 10/02/02 Attorney/Client from Michelle Mancias Privilege and Work to Richard Schulkins Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 402. 3800-3801 Handwritten notes of Undated Attorney/Client Tom Seaman (post- Privilege and Work filing of Product as it consists litigation of mental based on impressions, content) conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 403. 3802-3808 Letter from Greg 09/27/02 Attorney/Client Giometti to Richard Privilege and Work Schulkins re: status of Product as it is a litigation communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 404. 3809-3815 Letter from Greg 09/27/02 Attorney/Client Giometti to Richard Privilege and Work Schulkins re: status of Product as it is a litigation communication between State Farm's legal counsel that consists of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories. 405. 3816-3884 Thorne Electronic Claim Various Log Notes No. 482 ; File dated 11/07/02 and CFE AI No. 418 dated 07/11/02 — Redacted as Attorney/Client Privilege and Work Product as it is a communication between State Farm's legal counsel and State Farm representatives. Log Notes regarding communications between State Farm and John Rodman have not been redacted because they are within the scope of Judge Kane's Order dated November 15, 2002. 406. 3885 Fax Cover Sheet from 12/31/02 Attorney/Client Brian Arakaki to Mary at Privilege as it is a SGM communication between State Farm representatives and State Farm's legal counsel. THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT AS THEY WERE PREPARED OR CREATED AFTER THE FILING OF THE SUBJECT LITIGATION ON JUNE 17, 2002 AND ARE COMMUNICATIONS BY OR BETWEEN STATE FARM'S LEGAL COUNSEL THAT CONSIST OF MENTAL IMPRESSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, OPINIONS, OR LEGAL THEORIES. Privileged Documents Received from Corporate — 33 Files Electronic Claim Log (not redacted) Research Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege — Research Investigation — Research Documents with Sticky Note titled "Documents for Deposition" (Working Files) Drafts (Working Files) (SF Response to Lee Discovery) Endorsement of Exhibits, Manuals, etc. (Working File) Settlement Conference — Lee/Thorne (Working File and Notes) Plaintiff Lee's Amended Complaint (Working File) Laugesen Deposition (Working File) Michael Hodges (Working File) Schieltz Deposition (Working File) West Deposition (Working File) Plouffe Deposition (Working File) Black Binder with Memo to Greg from Mark Regarding Review Of Kaudy's Request for Supplemental Responses To Written Discovery with Attached Discovery and Orders Baird Deposition (Working File) Miller Deposition (Working File) Gary Fye Deposition (Working File) (3 files) Legal Research Lee — Legal Standing (Working File and Research) John Grund (Working File) Motion to Compel (includes Exhibit 61 — ACE documents for sealed Motion to Expand Protective Order) (Working File) Plaintiffs' Disclosures (Working File) Motion to Vacate Judgment (Working File) Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege (Working File) Unlabeled File with Documents from Lee PIP File Unlabeled File with Documents from Lee PIP File Pleadings, Motions, etc. re Motion to Vacate Judgment (Working File) Rule 26(a)(1) Privilege log (with handwritten notes) Seaman Giometti Amended Rule 26(a)(1) Privilege/Litigation Log — Correspondence Log between Seaman Giometti and State Farm in Connection with Extra Contractual Claim Pleadings (Working Copies) Attorney notes re Larry Thorne Deposition and Working Copies of Documents Memorandum Brief in Support of Cross Motion for Summary Judgment filed in Grange Insurance Association v. Wertz, El Paso County District Court Letter from Baldwin Brown, dated November 21, 2002, enclosing Def. Thorne's Responses to Plaintiff's Request for Admissions, Interrogatories and RFP — duplicates Drafts — Motion to Disqualify Kaudy (Working File) Jerry Wagner (Working File) Ed Gindrich (Working File) Outline for Hearing on Motions for Partial Summary Judgment (Working File) Extra Copy of Thorne's Response to State Farm's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Extra Copy of Brief Opposing Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Stack of Documents with sticky label "Stuff from Tom's Desk" (Working Files) (includes Plaintiff State Farm's Motion for Protective Order Regarding Deposition of Rule 36(b)(6) Representative) — (working copies) Misc. Copies of Pleadings and Documents (includes ACE documents) Black Binder Labeled "Lee v. Thorne (Vol. 1 of 3)" with Index titled, "Discovery/Medical Notebook" and tabbed sections (Working File) Black Binder Labeled "Lee v. Thorne (Vol. 2 of 3)" with Index titled, "Discovery/Medical Notebook" and tabbed sections and including loose copy of Coverage Opinion dated April 3, 2002, Memorandum dated Nov. 2, 2001 Re: Fye — Inadmissibility of Opinion Testimony Concerning the Validity of Statements made by Other Witnesses; Fye Documents (identified by Ron Getchey and Misc. Case Law) Rodman Billing Statements (Working File) Black Binder Labeled "Lee v. Thorne (Vol. 3 of 3)" with Index, "Discovery/Medical Notebook" (Working File) THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS ARE DUPLICATES/WORKING COPIES AND MAY INCLUDE DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT AS THEY WERE PREPARED OR CREATED AFTER THE FILING OF THE SUBJECT LITIGATION ON JUNE 17, 2002 AND ARE COMMUNICATIONS BY OR BETWEEN STATE FARM'S LEGAL COUNSEL THAT CONSIST OF MENTAL IMPRESSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, OPINIONS, OR LEGAL THEORIES. Pleadings Files — State Farm v. Lee — Vol. 1, Vol. 2, Vol. 3, Vol. 4, Vol. 5 (1 of 2), Vol. 5 (2 of 2) Deborah Plouffe Deposition dated Nov. 14, 2002 Responses — ACE, etc. Rich Report Ricci Letter John R. Rodman Deposition, Nov. 18, 2002 John R. Rodman Exhibits John R. Rodman Deposition, Dec. 18, 2002 John Rodman Exhibits, Vol. 2 Response-Determination of Law Dyann Schlietz Deposition, dated Nov. 11, 2002 Dyann Schlietz Deposition, dated Nov. 11, 2002 Dr. Richard F. Spiegle Deposition, dated May 17, 1999 Thorne Deposition, Nov. 20, 2002 (1 of 2) Thorne Deposition, Nov. 20, 2002 (Vol. 2 of 2) Susan West Deposition dated Nov. 13, 2002 Susan West Deposition dated Nov. 13, 2002 Activity Logs (not redacted) Ads AT v. State Farm — Use of PIP Medical (Research) Auto Claim Manual — Other Insured Bahr, Kreidle Documents Steven Baird Deposition, Nov. 12, 2002 Steven Baird Deposition, dated Nov. 12, 2002 Steven Baird Deposition, dated Dec. 19, 2002 (Vol. 2) Basic Pleadings (State Farm v. Lee) Cases Sean Choi Affidavit dated July 18, 2002 Claim Committee Disclosures — Letters Discovery Pleadings Discovery Requests Endorsements Expert Disclosures Fye Report, dated August 26, 2002 GCM-453 Grund Report Richard M. Hodges Affidavit, dated July 19, 2002 Richard M. Hodges Deposition, dated Nov. 13, 2003, Vol. 2 of 3 Richard M. Hodges Deposition, dated Jan. 15, 2003 (Vol. 2 of 2) Injury Evaluation Report Jury Instruction — BI Richard W. Laugesen Deposition, dated Nov. 27, 2002 Richard Laugesen Exhibits File labeled, Lee v. State Farm — "C-31103" with listing of State Farm Testimony Exhibits and What Appear to be Attorney Comments in Right Hand Margin Yoon Boon Lee Statement, dated July 18, 2002 State Farm Manual — Legal Services Program File labeled "Misc. Material" Motion to Vacate Judgment with tabbed Exhibits News Letter — S G Objection to Hearing Delay with Indexed Exhibits PIP File Materials Lee PIP File THE FOLLOWING CATEGORIES OF DOCUMENTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT AS THEY INCLUDE COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN MR. THORNE AND HIS ATTORNEY JOHN RODMAN AND CONSIST OF MENTAL IMPRESSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, OPINIONS, OR LEGAL THEORIES. Original Thorne Claim File Thorne Claim Log (includes Privilege Log) (Original redacted log) Electronic Claim Log (not redacted) Claim File 06-3804-159 — Bates Stamp Labels beginning Thorne CF 000001 through Thorne CF 002396 (w/Privileged Documents) Package of Documents with Rule 26(a)(1) Log of Privilege Documents Withheld (and Privileged Documents) Package of Documents from Thorne Claim File with Confidential Settlement Statements from John Rodman to Judge Davidson Package of Documents labeled Davidson Correspondence Black Binder with Misc. Thorne Privileged Documents Thorne Claim File — Bates Stamp Labeled "SF/Thorne 000001 — 000599" (Working File) Thorne Claim File — Bates Stamped SF/Thorne 000600 — 001500 (Working File) Thorne Claim File — Bates Stamped SF/Thorne 001501 — 002180 (Working File) Two Sets of Documents with Seaman Giometti Rule 26(a)(1) Log of Privileged Documents Seaman Giometti Rule 26(a)(1) Log of Documents Withheld with Attached Copies of Documents Package of Documents with Seaman Giometti Rule 26(a)(1) Log of Documents Withheld with Attached Documents Labeled "These Are (Taken) From the Kaudy File Copy" Seaman Giometti Rule 26(a)(1) Privilege/Anticipation of Litigation Log — Set Labeled "File Copy;" Set Labeled "Baldwin Copy;" — Set Labeled "These Were Pulled from Rich Kaudy's Documents"