James v. Veneziano
98 So. 3d 697
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff filed a personal injury suit after defendant allegedly rear-ended plaintiff's vehicle; plaintiff contends defendant's negligence caused the collision.
- Defendant admitted pre-accident dementia and brain tumors in prior interrogatories but later denied such infirmities during initial proceedings.
- Defense counsel canceled a scheduled pretrial deposition after reportedly experiencing a stroke; plaintiff sought to compel further interrogatories and ten years of medical records.
- Trial court granted the discovery request, directing defendant to respond within 30 days; defendant petitioned for writ of certiorari in this court.
- The court addresses whether the discovery order implicates privacy rights and whether in camera review is required to assess relevance.
- Ruling remands for in camera examination and limited access procedures consistent with privacy protections and Florida law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the certiorari petition lies when privacy rights are implicated | Fla. privacy rights justify access to records. | Discovery violates privacy and irreparable harm without in camera review. | Writ granted; remand for in camera proceedings. |
| Whether an in camera examination is required for privacy-sensitive material | Records may be relevant; in camera review not necessary. | In camera review is essential to protect privacy before disclosure. | Order departed from essential requirements; in camera examination required. |
| Scope and relevance of medical records to be disclosed | Records related to current recall of events are relevant. | Scope too broad; privacy concerns warrant narrowing. | Partial relevance identified; remand to determine scope after in camera review. |
| Remedy for improper discovery order | Proceed with full discovery as originally ordered. | Order should be quashed or narrowed due to privacy concerns. | Petition granted; order vacated and remanded for proper in camera proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- McEnany v. Ryan, 44 So.3d 245 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (privacy-sensitive discovery requires in camera review to determine relevance)
- Bergmann v. Freda, 829 So.2d 966 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (in camera examination required for privacy-related discovery)
- Friedman v. Heart Inst., of Port St. Lucie, Inc., 863 So.2d 189 (Fla. 2003) (privacy considerations in medical records disclosures)
- Clampitt v. D.J. Spencer Sales, 786 So.2d 570 (Fla. 2001) (scope of relevance in evaluating records)
- Eppler v. Tarmac Am., Inc., 752 So.2d 592 (Fla. 2000) (relevance and privacy balancing in discovery)
- Bridges v. Speer, 79 So.2d 679 (Fla.1955) (longstanding considerations of discovery relevance)
- Sorel v. Koonce, 53 So.3d 1225 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (application to privacy and discovery)
- Abreu v. F.E. Dev. Recycling, Inc., 35 So.3d 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (privacy protections in discovery disputes)