Judge orders 11 State Farm documents made public in Oklahoma lawsuit

OKLAHOMA CITY — An interruption from the gallery briefly brought a high-profile homeowners insurance lawsuit hearing to a halt Monday morning before Oklahoma County District Judge Amy Palumbo ordered 11 internal State Farm documents to be stripped of their confidential status.

Hannah Whitten, attorney for the Hursh family, the plaintiffs in the Hursh v. State Farm case, had started reading from a recent deposition on Sept. 28. Paige Masters, a lawyer who represents State Farm in a separate case in Comanche County, then stood up from the spectator benches to raise an objection, warning that Whitten was reading from an unfinalized deposition transcript that could still be subject to confidentiality protections under a protective order in West v. State Farm, a matter being simultaneously adjudicated in Oklahoma.

Interruptions of this nature are seldom tolerated during courtroom proceedings. Palumbo paused the arguments and called Masters into the well of the courtroom, asking her to identify herself on the record.

"I'm not in the habit of just letting people pop up from the gallery and weigh in," Palumbo said.

Despite not formally entering an appearance, Masters was allowed to say State Farm maintained it had a 30-day window under the West case's protective order to designate portions of the transcript Whitten was reading from as confidential.

The Billy and Lacy Hursh v. State Farm case is said to be a centerpiece proceeding among nearly 1,000 individual lawsuits filed against the largest insurer in the state, all of which allege that State Farm systematically and improperly reduced or denied indemnity payouts on roof damage claims following severe weather events.

Stating an effort to balance the public's right to open proceedings against existing protective orders, Palumbo excused the media and public spectators about 35 minutes after the hearing's start to continue that portion behind closed doors.

After the better part of three hours passed, the hearing paused and reconvened later that afternoon. At the hearing's end, Palumbo granted in part the plaintiffs' motion regarding confidentiality. She ordered 11 specific State Farm documents to be de-designated, which means the confidential label is removed from materials that can then be referenced in open court and included in public pleadings.

Whitten had initially asked the court to de-designate 24 documents and to strike what plaintiffs have described as a "blanket" confidentiality designation applied across 800,000 pages of discovery produced by State Farm. She told the media outside the courtroom that afternoon that she doesn't know when the public will be able to see the 11 de-designated documents.

"I anticipate the public will see them when we are able to rely on them and use them in pleadings, which could be any day now," Whitten said.

Palumbo took the plaintiffs' remaining requests for the other 13 documents under advisement.

Whitten said she expects to file a motion relying on some of those documents, then the public can "see for themselves how State Farm handles these claims."

Discovery delays

The Sept. 28 hearing also featured a stern warning from Palumbo regarding State Farm's ongoing discovery compliance.

Palumbo said with clear frustration that nearly a year had passed since she first ordered the production of certain discovery categories, including extensive claim-related records. She questioned defense counsel on why full productions, complete privilege logs and clear redactions had not yet been delivered in the Hursh case.

"From this point forward, every time we're together, I'm going to be asking about this, because as far as I'm concerned, State Farm's inability or unwillingness to comply with the orders of this court is putting you in very dangerous sanction territory," Palumbo said.

Plaintiffs' representatives said they've been dealing with heavily redacted "white-box" files, incomplete email chains that require piecing together multiple exhibits, as well as missing metadata on executive files, issues they said are designed to stall litigation.

Whitten said State Farm's strategy to delay cases like this is a practice that extends all the way to the beginning of a policyholder submitting a claim.

"It's kind of become pervasive inside the insurance industry," Whitten said.

Lance Leffel, attorney at GableGotwals, one of the firms representing State Farm in Oklahoma, pushed back on that, arguing the delay actually stems from the extraordinary volume and legal complexity of production mandated by the court.

He said complying with the court's orders requires extensive review of tens of thousands of claims files, totaling more than 800,000 pages, to ensure that personal identifying information of policyholders and third parties is thoroughly protected under state and federal privacy laws.

Leffel denied that State Farm was attempting to stonewall the process. He said the company's legal teams and third-party vendors continue to work toward full compliance.

"There's no ill will. This idea that this is all being done for delay is just not true," Leffel said.

State Farm said in a statement that the company evaluates each claim based on the facts and coverage purchased, and that it remains focused on helping people recover after a loss.

"From 2024 through 2025, we have paid more than $1 billion to Oklahoma customers for wind and hail damage," the company statement reads. "We stand ready to explain our processes and provide full and accurate context for our decision-making. The misleading narrative being advanced by billboard attorneys does not accurately reflect State Farm's claims practices or the facts underlying individual claims."

The Hursh case is scheduled to go to trial on Dec. 7, 2026.

Distributed by Newsbank, inc.