*1 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel State Farm to Produce Certain Documents. [Dkt. 65.] For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's Motion.

I. Background

This is an action for breach of contract and bad faith relating to the handling of an insurance claim for storm damage to Plaintiff's property. Though the case was filed in 2016, remarkably little progress has been made as the result of a laborious and contentious discovery process. The parties have exchanged privilege logs, and filed dueling motions to compel seeking documents included on the logs. In this motion, Plaintiff seeks an order compelling production of all of the documents on Defendant's privilege log on the basis that the privilege log is deficient. Plaintiff further seeks sanctions against Defendant for its failure to provide certain documents and possible spoliation of evidence. Defendant maintains it has not waived its attorney-client privilege and asserts its actions do not warrant sanctions.

II. Discussion

Plaintiff's Motion seeks two distinct requests for relief. First, Plaintiff asserts the privilege logs produced by Defendant are so deficient the Court should deem the purported privileges waived and order the production of the documents listed in the log. Second, Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the form of an adverse inference on its bad faith claim for Defendant's failure to produce the performance reviews of Eric Meador (the primary field adjuster on the insurance claim). The Court will address each of these requests in turn below.

Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b), a party withholding documents on the basis of privilege must produce a privilege log that is sufficiently detailed to enable the other party to assess the claim. Courts in the Seventh Circuit have required that a privilege log identify “for each separate document the following information: the date, the author and all recipients, along with their capacities, the subject matter of the document, the purpose for its production and a specific explanation of why the document is privileged.” Muro v. Target Corp., No. 04 C 6267, 2006 WL 3422181, at *2 (N.D. Ill. 2006).

Plaintiff asserts Defendant's privilege logs are both untimely and deficient, therefore the privileges asserted within should be waived. Defendant has amended its initial privilege log twice. Though Plaintiff notes deficiencies with all three logs, the Court will focus its analysis on the Second Amended Privilege Log (the most recent log) which asserts attorney-client privilege as the basis for each redaction/withholding of documents.

From the first entry, it is apparent the log is woefully inadequate. The first six pages of the privilege log consist of “file notes” – meaning they are notes drafted by State Farm employees to the claim file (with the recipient noted as “file”). There is no separate column for an explanation of how the privilege applies – simply a “subject” column with brief, vague descriptions such as “File note referencing e-mail with State Farm's outside attorney on June 8, 2016” and “File note dated February 10, 2016, referencing communications and conference call with State Farm outside attorney and State Farm employees.” [Dkt. 67-1 at 3-4.] These entries are not authored by or sent to attorneys, and there is not enough information in the description to even hazard a guess as to whether they contain legal advice.

*2 Entries involving counsel fare no better. For example, VILLAS005447PROD-VILLAS005448PROD is an email from adjuster Eric Meador to counsel Dennis Cantrell and Mike Barr. The subject column provides: “E-mail dated September 18, 2015, to State Farm outside attorney.” This does not properly assert attorney-client privilege. “Communications from attorney to client are privileged only if they constitute legal advice, or tend directly or indirectly to reveal the substance of a client confidence.” Judson Atkinson Candies, Inc. v. Latini Hohberger Dhimantec, 529 F.3d 371, 388 (7th Cir. 2008). These descriptions provide no ability to evaluate whether the communication involves legal advice or reveals a client confidence.

Privilege must be established on a document-by-document basis; the mere assertion of a privilege is not enough. See Allendale Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bull Data Systems, Inc., 145 F.R.D. 84, 86 (N.D. Ill. 1992). Defendant State Farm has done nothing more than blindly assert attorney-client privilege with absolutely no explanation as to why the privilege applies. As a result, the Court finds the privilege log is deficient. The next question is how to proceed from here.

Plaintiff argues Defendant waived its claim of privilege and the Court should order Defendant to produce unredacted versions of all documents on the deficient privilege log. Defendant correctly notes that ordering the production of potentially privileged documents is a serious sanction appropriate “only if the party that authored the log has displayed willfulness, bad faith or fault.” Muro v. Target Corp., 250 F.R.D. 350, 365 (N.D. Ill. 2007), aff'd, 580 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2009).

Prior to the filing of this motion, the parties had a two-part discovery conference with the Court on January 25 and January 31, 2018. Among the issues discussed were the inadequacies of both parties’ privilege logs. Defendant produced the Second Amended Privilege Log [Dkt. 67-1] days after those conferences, yet the glaring inadequacies remain. While Defendant's conduct falls shy of the “willfulness, bad faith, or fault” required to order the disclosure of potentially privileged documents, it does warrant granting Plaintiff's motion to compel. The Court ORDERS Defendant to file a privilege log that is fully compliant with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) on or before March 26, 2018. Defendant should be aware that the failure to produce an adequate log in response to this Order may result in a waiver of the privilege. Surgery Ctr. at 900 N. Michigan Ave., LLC v. Am. Physicians Assurance Corp., Inc., 317 F.R.D. 620, 631–32 (N.D. Ill. 2016).

Upon review of the revised privilege log, if Plaintiff desires to renew this motion with regard to certain documents on the log, it may do so without further intervention from the Court. Consistent with Rule 37(a)(5), if Plaintiff desires to file a motion for the reasonable expenses incurred in the making of this motion, it may do so on or before March 30, 2018.

Plaintiff asserts it has twice requested copies of Eric Meador's performance reviews and while Defendant agreed to produce them, it has not done so. Plaintiff seeks sanctions in the form of an adverse inference on Plaintiff's bad faith claim for Defendant's continued discovery delays and the failure to produce Mr. Meador's performance reviews.

In its response, Defendant again agreed to produce the documents. However, shortly thereafter Defendant produced an affidavit from Tim Northquist, a State Farm Catastrophe and Agency Response Team Section Manager, reporting that the performance reviews were lost. [Dkt. 74-2.] Mr. Northquist indicated that the reviews were stored in a filing cabinet located in an office in Indianapolis that was shut down in November 30, 2016 (shortly after this case was filed). These documents were to be boxed and shipped to State Farm's human resources department in Bloomington, Illinois. Mr. Northquist stated that despite a diligent search, State Farm was unable to locate Mr. Meador's performance reviews. Id. at 6.

*3 Plaintiff asserts it is entitled to an adverse inference that the missing performance reviews would support its bad faith claim. “An employer's destruction of or inability to produce a document, standing alone, does not warrant an inference that the document, if produced, would have contained information adverse to the employer's case.” Park v. City of Chicago, 297 F.3d 606, 615 (7th Cir. 2002). In order to draw an inference that the missing documents contained information adverse to the Defendant, Plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendants intentionally destroyed the documents in bad faith. Faas v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 532 F.3d 633, 644 (7th Cir. 2008.) The crucial element in a spoliation claim is not the fact that the documents were destroyed but that they were destroyed for the purpose of hiding adverse information. Faas, 532 F.3d at 644.

At this time, there is no evidence that Defendant destroyed the documents, much less that it destroyed them for the purpose of hiding adverse information. Consequently, there is no basis for sanctions against Defendant based upon spoliation of evidence and this aspect of Plaintiff's Motion must be DENIED.

III. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's First Motion to Compel State Farm to Produce Certain Documents [Dkt. 65] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant shall file a revised privilege log.

SO ORDERED.