Harborside HealthCare, LLC. v. Jacobson
222 So. 3d 612
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Decedent William F. Jacobson resided at Bay Tree Center (operated/managed by Harborside entities) from Nov. 20, 2012 to Feb. 4, 2013; he later died and the Estate sued for wrongful death, negligence, and nursing-home violations.
- In 2016 the Estate served amended requests for production (RFPs), including a voluminous RFP (73 paragraphs with subparts) and a broad RFP for electronic communications covering many administrators/officials, a long time span, and 30 keyword triggers.
- Harborside produced some documents but objected to many requests as overly broad, unduly burdensome, vague, irrelevant, and protected by statutory privileges (peer review, HIPAA, chapter 400), attorney-client/work product, personnel privacy, and trade secret protections.
- The Estate moved to compel; the trial court granted the motion on written submissions (no hearing) by entering the Estate’s proposed order without findings; Harborside’s motion for reconsideration was denied.
- Harborside petitioned for writ of certiorari, arguing the order (1) required patently overbroad and irrelevant discovery, (2) failed to protect privileged/statutorily protected materials and nonparty privacy, and (3) provided no findings or in camera review where required.
- The district court granted the petition in part: it quashed the order as to specified RFP paragraphs (19 requests) and the electronic-communications paragraph 1, but left the remainder of the order in effect, noting the trial court may need to perform in camera review or craft limits if later developments justify discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RFPs sought relevant, proportional discovery or were patently overbroad | Estate: requests are relevant to liability/notice and reasonably tailored by keywords/timeframes | Harborside: requests (many paragraphs) are overly broad, unduly burdensome, and seek irrelevant material beyond Jacobson’s care | Court: quashed order as to 19 specified paragraphs that were overbroad/impermissible; left remainder in effect |
| Whether production would require disclosure of privileged/statutorily protected materials (peer review, HIPAA, ch.400, attorney-client, work product) | Estate: did not show limits; sought broad access | Harborside: asserted statutory privileges and privacy protections; requested in camera review before disclosure | Court: certiorari relief appropriate where privilege/statutory protection implicated; quashed parts of order and noted trial court must conduct in camera review and fashion protections if discovery later justified |
| Whether broad email RFP (wide custodian list, long time window, 30 keywords) was permissible | Estate: emails likely contain relevant evidence (staffing, discharge, infection, etc.) | Harborside: email request is unbounded, captures nonparty/other residents’ medical info, and implicates HIPAA and other privileges | Court: quashed order as to paragraph 1 of electronic communications (overbroad); other email-related requests remain in effect subject to protections and possible in camera review |
| Whether trial court’s entry of blanket order without findings/hearing was adequate | Estate: procedural rules allowed decision on written submissions; order is valid | Harborside: trial court failed to address specific objections or make findings (statutory privileges, privacy), departing from essential requirements of law | Court: criticized lack of findings; granted certiorari relief where trial court failed to address statutory objections and where disclosure would cause irreparable harm |
Key Cases Cited
- Bright House Networks, LLC v. Cassidy, 129 So. 3d 501 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (certiorari standard for discovery orders that depart from essential requirements of law)
- Root v. Balfour Beatty Constr. LLC, 132 So. 3d 867 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (carte blanche discovery of irrelevant material is irreparable harm; in camera review and limits may be required)
- Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (disclosure of privileged information is irreparable and warrants certiorari)
- Life Care Ctrs. of Am. v. Reese, 948 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (certiorari appropriate for orders requiring patently overbroad discovery causing material injury)
- Bartow HMA, LLC v. Kirkland, 171 So. 3d 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (trial court must specifically address statutory-privilege objections or certiorari relief may be warranted)
- Beverly Enters.-Fla., Inc. v. Ives, 832 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (peer review privilege protects certain materials from discovery)
- Graham v. Dacheikh, 991 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (disclosure of nonparty confidential medical information without notice/protections departs from essential requirements of law)
- CAC-Ramsey Health Plans, Inc. v. Johnson, 641 So. 2d 434 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (wholesale disclosure of unrelated employee personnel files departs from essential requirements of law)