Allstate Insurance Co. v. Total Rehab & Medical Centers, Inc.
123 So. 3d 1162
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Petitioners sue Total Rehab and Medical Centers, Prosper Diagnostic Center, and Family Medical and Rehab Centers in Palm Beach circuit court for monetary damages.
- Two Petitioners' attorneys created a master summary chart (MSC) combining Petitioners' personal injury protection files with Respondents' medical and billing charts.
- MSC was admitted as a trial exhibit as a summary under section 90.956, Florida Statutes (2004), over Respondents’ objection.
- Trial ended in a mistrial before judgment.
- Before retrial, Respondents moved to depose the two Petitioners' attorneys who created the MSC; the trial court granted the motion.
- Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari arguing the order impermissibly invaded attorney-client/work-product privileges and caused irreparable harm.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the order to depose the MSC attorneys departures from essential requirements. | Petitioners claim the order violates privileges and disrupts work product. | Respondents argue Rule 1.310 allows deposition; court may limit privilege as needed. | Not departing from essential requirements; discovery supervision remains available. |
| Whether irreparable harm supports certiorari relief. | Deposing experts risks privileged information and attorney-client privilege irreparably harmed. | Discovery procedures can be supervised to limit privilege disclosures. | Irreparable harm shown but not sufficient to grant certiorari relief on the issue presented. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nader v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 87 So.3d 712 (Fla.2012) (irreparable harm required for certiorari)
- 1620 Health Partners, L.C. v. Fluitt, 830 So.2d 935 (Fla.4th DCA 2002) (privilege considerations in discovery)
- The Haskell Co. v. Georgia Pac. Corp., 684 So.2d 297 (Fla.5th DCA 1996) (limits on discovery privileges)
- Marbulk Shipping, Inc. v. Bhagat, 948 So.2d 931 (Fla.3d DCA 2007) (deponent of party's attorney generally allowed)
- Somarriba v. Ali, 941 So.2d 526 (Fla.3d DCA 2006) (limits on discovery of privileged information)
- Young, Stern, & Tannenbaum, P.A. v. Smith, 416 So.2d 4 (Fla.3d DCA 1982) (attorney deposition rights under Rule 1.810(a))
- Northup v. Acken, 865 So.2d 1267 (Fla.2004) (evidence at trial not automatically work product)