Alabama Supreme Court Appellate Alert: Decisions from August 14, 2026

PDF

The Alabama Supreme Court issued its weekly release list on Friday, August 14, which included the following orders and opinions of interest to the business community:

• Ex parte State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. – This case involves the extent to which confidential information obtained in discovery may be shared and used in other cases. Mr. and Mrs. Foor brought a lawsuit against State Farm, alleging that State Farm “lowball[ed]” the costs of repairing storm damage to their roof. The trial court entered a protective order permitting the Foors’ counsel to use State Farm’s discovery materials—which State Farm deemed to be confidential— in their representation of clients in similar lawsuits. State Farm petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus directing the trial court to vacate its protective order and enter a protective order that did not permit sharing. Although the Court denied the petition in part, it also directed the trial court to modify its protective order in many respects, including by clarifying that the scope of its sharing provisions were significantly narrower than the Foors had interpreted it to be. First, the Court held that discovery-sharing was permitted, but only for specific, pending lawsuits—not future, hypothetical lawsuits. Second, the Court held that sharing protective orders must include monitoring provisions under which recipients of shared materials agree to the terms of the protective order and submit to the jurisdiction of the trial court that enters it. Third, the Court held that sharing protective orders must include return-or-destroy provisions that permit parties using shared materials in other cases to retain those materials only until the conclusion of their respective cases. Finally, the Court clarified that, regardless of scope of the protective order’s sharing provision, whether the shared discovery is ultimately allowed to be used in other cases is a decision for the trial courts in which those cases are pending. Justices Shaw, Wise, and Parker dissented from the Court’s decision to permit State Farm’s confidential information to be used in other litigation by persons not parties to the Foor lawsuit. (Disclosure: Maynard Nexsen represented amici in support of Petitioner in this case).

If you have questions about these decisions or want to discuss any other matters relating to Alabama appellate law, please do not hesitate to reach out to any member of Maynard Nexsen’s Appellate Group.