LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE, Plaintiff, v. A. O. SMITH CORPORATION, Defendants CASE NO. 4:04CV371-SPM/AK United States District Court, N.D. Florida Filed August 17, 2005 Counsel Carol Marie Rooney, Scott Jeffrey Frank, Scott Stewart Katz, Butler Pappas, Tampa, FL, Kellie Ann Caggiano, Carr Allison, Tallahassee, FL, for Plaintiff. Cindy Post Massion, Guy E. Burnette Jr. PA, William R. Mabile, Andrews Crabtree Knox etc, Tallahassee, FL, for Defendants Kornblum, Allan, United States Magistrate Judge ORDER *1 Presently before the Court in the above entitled action is Defendant's Motion for Protective Order regarding certain areas of inquiry to be delved into at the deposition of James Dowell, Plaintiff's corporate designee, on August 23, 2005. (Doc. 53). Plaintiff has responded. (Doc. 55). Having considered said motion and the response thereto, the Court is of the opinion that the motion should be GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The specific areas to which Defendant objects are Nos. 1 through 5 of Exhibit A, attached to the Notice of Deposition, on the grounds that the requests for information about other fan motors it manufactures, not the fan motor in the fan at the time of the incident or the motor that was designed for the fan, is overly broad and irrelevant. In its response, Plaintiff argues that it only recently learned what fan motor was actually in the fan and contends that other fan motors may have “fit in” the fan making information about them relevant. Plaintiff also contends that it is entirely relevant to inquire from the corporate representative of a manufacturer about other products, especially since Defendant is claiming that Plaintiff was using the wrong fan motor. However, Defendant has responded to Interrogatory No. 2 of Plaintiff's Third Set of Interrogatories that it designed only one motor for use in the subject fan and explained that it does not mass produce fan motors, it custom designs motors for particular customers and that it would require an engineer to examine thousands of motor specifications to determine what other fan motors could “fit in” the subject fan. Based on this explanation, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not shown sufficient relevancy of these other custom designed fan motors to warrant the significant burden such an inquiry would place upon the Defendant to provide the information requested by Nos. 1 through 5. The Court also agrees with Defendant that the term “associated with” is vague and should not be included in the requests. Thus, subject areas 1 through 5 will be limited to inquiry about fan motors manufactured or distributed by Defendant and only as to the motor designed to be used in the subject fan and the motor that was actually installed in the fan. Defendant also objects to Nos. 6, 8 and 9 on the grounds of attorney-client privilege and/or work product doctrine. No. 6: All documentation including, but not limited to, memoranda, electronic correspondence, summaries, invoices, reports, bills, phone notes, correspondence, handwritten notes, checks, invoices, notes, contracts and photographs pertaining to the fire at the IGA Food Store located at Highway 98, Carrabelle, Florida 32322 on December 10, 2001. No. 8: All witness statements of anyone with knowledge of or involvement with, written or recorded, regarding the fire at the IGA Food Store located at Highway 98, Carrabelle, Florida 32322 on December 10, 2001. No. 9: All notes of conversations and/or meetings between you and anyone pertaining to any inspections or investigations of the fire at the IGA Food Store located at Highway 98, Carrabelle, Florida 32322 on December 10, 2001. *2 The Court finds that there may or may not be material included in these three requests that qualify as work product or privileged matter, but that the Court cannot give a blanket ruling as to any of the requests. Rule 26(b)(3) protects from discovery work product prepared in anticipation of litigation, but “never reaches to protect from discovery actual evidence taken from the scene or facts about the scene or incident.” National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Murray Sheet Metal Co., 967 F.2d 980, 984 (4th Cir. 1992). Thus, memoranda, notes, accident reports and other documents that are routinely prepared by agents or inspectors following an incident at this store that do not contain mental impressions or opinions about litigation or liability or were prepared at the direction of an attorney would not be work product and would be discoverable. Southern Railway Co. v. Lanham, 403 F.2d 119, 131 (5th Cir. 1969). There are certainly some of these type documents included in No. 6. Likewise, witness statements (No. 8) taken after the fire that relate only the facts of the incident would fall into this type of category. Also, conversations between the corporate representative and counsel (No. 9) would be privileged, but the request asks for notes of conversations between the representative and “anyone pertaining to any inspections or investigations of the fire,” and conversations with persons other than counsel would not be privileged. The Court reminds the parties that Rule 26(b)(5), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requires a party asserting privilege or work product to prepare a log identifying the documents withheld. The Court suggests that Defendant prepare such a log for all documents responsive to these requests that it intends to withhold, and if Plaintiff insists that these documents should be produced it can file the appropriate motion at a later time for possible in camera review of the specific documents at issue and a determination at that time. Likewise, the rules of procedure provide several courses of action that Powell may take regarding his testimony and the assertion of a privilege or other objection, but until the specific questions are asked the Court cannot make a determination on the validity of such an objection. Accordingly, it is ORDERED: Defendant's Motion for Protective Order (doc. 53) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART, in that the deposition of James Dowell shall go forward as scheduled and that subject areas Nos. 1 through 5 may be posed to Dowell as they have been limited herein. The motion is denied insofar as the Court will not limit Nos. 6, 8 and 9, and Plaintiff may depose Dowell as to these subject areas and Dowell may raise his objections on a question by question basis. DONE AND ORDERED at Gainesville, Florida, this 17th day of August, 2005.