## Facts

- An estate administrator sued insurers and related defendants in Alabama circuit court, alleging negligent issuance of a life-insurance policy.
- During discovery, the plaintiff sought production of policies and related files for several insureds who were not parties to the case.
- The requested materials included nonpublic personal information of nonparty policyholders, including medical history and identifying and contact information, as well as coverage, premium, and benefit details.
- The insurers objected, arguing the information was confidential and that disclosure was prohibited by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLBA), 15 U.S.C. § 6801 et seq., particularly 15 U.S.C. § 6802.
- The trial court overruled the objections and ordered production.
- The insurers petitioned for writs of mandamus seeking to vacate the discovery order and to require a protective order limiting or prohibiting disclosure.

## Issues

1. Whether GLBA, including 15 U.S.C. § 6802, prohibits insurers from producing nonpublic personal information of nonparty customers when production is compelled by a state-court civil discovery order.
2. Whether the insurers established a clear legal right to mandamus relief vacating the discovery order and compelling entry of a protective order.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court denied the petitions for writs of mandamus.
- The court held that GLBA did not bar disclosure of the requested information when produced in compliance with a court discovery order.
- Because GLBA did not prohibit the compelled production, the insurers failed to show a clear legal right to have the discovery order vacated.
- The court declined to require the trial court to enter the particular protective order requested through mandamus.

## Legal Principles

- GLBA’s privacy provisions do not categorically prohibit disclosure of nonpublic personal information when disclosure is compelled by judicial process and falls within statutory exceptions permitting compliance with law and legal requirements.
- A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy; it requires, among other elements, a clear legal right to the relief sought and a corresponding duty on the trial court.
- When a federal privacy statute does not clearly forbid disclosure compelled by court order, disputes over confidentiality are generally addressed through ordinary discovery management (e.g., protective orders and redaction) rather than extraordinary relief.

## Conclusion

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled that GLBA did not invalidate a trial court’s order compelling insurers to produce nonparty policyholder information in civil discovery, and therefore denied mandamus relief seeking to block production and to mandate a protective order.


Ex parte National W. Life Ins. Co., 899 So. 2d 218 (Ala. 2004)