Estilien v. Dyda
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 13205
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Dyda sued Estilien for injuries from an auto accident and won a verdict.
- Dyda moved to tax costs and attorney’s fees after Estilien rejected a settlement offer under Fla. Stat. § 768.79(6)(b) (2012).
- Dyda sought production of Estilien’s attorney billing records for the case to prove fees, while Estilien objected as irrelevant and privileged.
- The trial court ordered discovery of the billing records with redaction of privileged material.
- The petition for certiorari argued the order violated essential requirements of law by lacking relevancy and showing of need.
- The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal had previously held billing records may be protected work product or irrelevant; Hillman suggested some rare relevance but required a showing of need and relevance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by ordering production of billing records without showing relevancy. | Dyda contends records are needed to prove fees and should be discoverable. | Estilien argues records are largely irrelevant and protected; no need shown. | Yes; order quashed for lack of relevancy showing. |
| Whether the records are protected as work product or privileged information. | Dyda needs time records to reconstruct fees; privilege redaction is insufficient. | Billing records contain privileged information about opposing counsel and client. | Records may be protected; however, the key issue is relevancy and need, not blanket disclosure. |
| Whether Hillman and related authorities require a showing of need and relevance for discovery of opposing counsel’s billing records. | N/A | N/A | The court must require a demonstrated need and relevance; undiscerning discovery is improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Heinrich Gordon Batchelder Hargrove Weihe & Gent v. Kapner, 605 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (discovery of opposing counsel billing records avoidable if privileged or irrelevant)
- Finol v. Finol, 869 So.2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (billing records discovery not deemed irreparably harmful; work product not central)
- Hillman v. HCA Health Srvcs. of Fla., Inc., 870 So.2d 104 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (attorney billing records generally protected as work product; need for rare relevancy)
- Langston v. Allstate Ins. Co., 655 So.2d 91 (Fla. 1995) (certiorari jurisdiction established when protected info disclosed without relevancy)
- Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2003) (quasi-quotations recognizing privacy/confidentiality considerations in discovery)