ORDER

THOMAS B. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Production. (Doc. 49). Upon due consideration of the relevant filings (including Defendant's response (Doc. 57) and Plaintiff's supplemental brief (Doc. 66)), the Court GRANTS the motion in part and DENIES the motion in part.

I. Background

On February 11, 2010, Plaintiff Eleanor C. Moss, the personal representative of the estate of Roy L. Moss, filed a bad faith claim against insurer, GEICO Indemnity Company ("GEICO"), after an excess verdict in a state court under-insured motorist action. (Doc. 2). The case was removed to federal court on March 15, 2010 based on diversity jurisdiction. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff made several discovery requests, and although GEICO produced some documents, it withheld others on the basis of attorney-client privilege and work product protection. On February 24, 2012, Plaintiff moved to compel the withheld documents listed in GEICO's original privilege log. (Doc. 49). On March 23, 2012, the undersigned directed GEICO to submit the withheld documents to the Court for in camera review. (Doc. 60). Defendant complied with the Court's order and submitted the documents along with a new, more expansive privilege log. (Doc. 61-1). Because of this, the undersigned granted Plaintiff leave to file a reply brief. (Doc. 65). The Court has concluded its independent examination of the documents and the memoranda of the party and finds that the motion to compel production (Doc. 49) is now ripe for adjudication.

II. Discussion

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "strongly favor full discovery whenever possible." Farnsworth v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985). Parties may obtain discovery of "any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense . . ." FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1). It is not necessary that the material be admissible at trial "if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id. When a party withholds otherwise discoverable matter on the basis that it is protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, that party must (1) clearly assert the claim, and (2) describe the withheld item(s) with enough detail that "will enable other parties to assess the claim." FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(5(A).

In this case, Plaintiff asked GEICO to produce "[its] entire files, cover to cover, both electronic and hard copy, regarding the underlying claim and lawsuit up to the date of the underlying judgment." (Doc. 49-3 ¶ 1). Plaintiff maintains that "all materials in an insurer's claims file that were created prior to the resolution of the underlying contractual action are discoverable over the insurer's work product objections." (Doc. 49 ¶ 11) (citing Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So.2d 1121 (Fla. 2005)). In response to this request for production, GEICO produced some pertinent documents, but withheld others for two reasons. (Doc. 49 ¶¶ 7, 9); see also (Doc. 49-4 at 1-2). First, the insurer maintains that the withheld documents constitute work product that was created in anticipation of the pending bad faith action, which is beyond the scope of Ruiz, in which the court only required the production of pre-judgment material that pertained to "coverage, benefits, liability or damages" of the underlying claim. (Doc. 57 at 4). Second, GEICO argues that to the extent Ruiz applies, Plaintiff's motion to compel "should be denied because the documents at issue are protected by the attorney-client privilege." (Id. at 5) (citing Genovese v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 74 So.3d 1064 (Fla. 2011)).

A. Work Product Protection

The court's work product inquiry is two-fold. First, the court must determine whether the disputed material constitutes "work product." Under the federal rules, work product is described as material (i.e. a document or tangible item) that is prepared in anticipation of litigation "by or for another party or its representative (including the other party's attorney . . .)." FED. R. CIV. P. 26(b)(3)(A). Second, the court must decide whether any circumstances exist to compel the discovery of the work product. Ordinarily, work product is not discoverable unless "the party shows that it has substantial need for the materials to prepare its case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain their substantial equivalent by other means," or that some other principle applies to compel its production. Id.

In Ruiz, the Florida Supreme Court determined that work product is discoverable in bad-faith actions brought pursuant to FLA. STAT. 624.155. Specifically, the court ruled that,

899 So.2d 1121, 1129-1130. The court further held that any such documents created after the resolution of the underlying insurance action and after the initiation of the bad faith action "may be subject to production upon a showing of good cause or pursuant to an order of the court following an in-camera inspection." Id. at 1130. In expressing its rationale, the court explained that

Id. at 1124. Here, it is undisputed that the underlying under-insured motorist action was resolved on February 11, 2010 ("date of judgment"). See (Doc. 49 ¶¶ 4, 10; Doc. 49-2 at 1-4; Doc. 57 at 3, 16).

GEICO has asserted work product (along with attorney-client privilege) as the basis for its objection to the production of the documents that pre-date the date of judgment. (Doc. 61-1). Since both protections are implicated, the Court will evaluate GEICO's objections to these documents according to the attorney-client framework, as discussed in section II.B, infra.1

Likewise, GEICO has asserted work product as the primary basis for its objection to the disclosure of documents that post-date the judgment.2 (Id.). Regarding these eleven (11) documents, the Court finds as follows:

B. Attorney-Client Privilege

In diversity cases, the application of the attorney-client privilege is governed by state law. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Levesque, 263 F.R.D. 663, 666 (M.D. Fla. 2010) (citing 1550 Brickell Assocs. v. Q.B.E. Ins. Co., 253 F.R.D. 697, 699 (S.D. Fla. 2008)). Pursuant to Florida Statutes § 90.502, the attorney-client privilege is invoked when a client consults a lawyer for the purpose of "obtaining legal services" or confers with a lawyer who is currently rendering legal services. Unique problems arise in the context of corporate claims of attorney-client privilege and the Florida Supreme Court requires a corporation to demonstrate the following to assert the privilege:

1550 Brickell Associates, 253 F.R.D. at 699 (citing Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So.2d 1377, 1383 (Fla. 1994)). The Florida Supreme Court has clearly stated that its holding in Ruiz "does not apply to attorney-client privileged communications in first-party bad faith actions." Genovese, 74 So. 3d at 1067. Accordingly, "attorney-client privileged communications are not discoverable in a first party [bad faith] action." Id. at 1066.

Upon consideration of the foregoing, the Court rules as follows with regards to GEICO's attorney-client based objections:

Concerning the documents contained in GEICO's Home Office Claims Legal File which it says are privileged:

III. Conclusion

Upon due consideration it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's motion to compel production (Doc. 49) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, as described herein.

2. The documents at Bates No. GLC 0011-0012 are STRICKEN from the privilege log. The Court agrees with GEICO that these documents do not pertain to this case.

3. In this instance, the Court finds that an award of attorneys fees or costs to

Plaintiff would be unjust. See FED. R. CIV. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(iii).

IT IS SO ORDERED.