Katzman v. Ranjana Corp.
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 9072
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- Katzman, a treating physician, and his P.A. treated Tammy Green under a letter of protection in a slip-and-fall suit against Ranjana.
- Ranjana served subpoenas for financial and billing data related to Katzman’s procedures and funds received under LOPs from 2007–2010.
- Petitioners objected as irrelevant, confidential, and overly burdensome, citing Rule 1.280 and Elkins v. Syken.
- Trial court denied the protective order, deeming Katzman a hybrid witness and allowing discovery under Rediron Fabrication, Inc.
- Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal issued a clarified Rediron, distinguishing this case and returning it for reconsideration consistent with the clarified rule.
- Petition granted; order quashed; case returned to trial court for proceedings consistent with the clarified Rediron decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery from a treating physician/expert is permissible. | Katzman argues Rediron is distinguishable and broader protections apply. | Ranjana contends discovery is relevant to bias and reasonableness under 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii). | Case remanded for trial-court-specific determination under clarified Rediron. |
| Whether the ‘hybrid witness’ rationale applies here. | Katzman was not injected into litigation by lawyer referral; no hybrid-witness rationale should control. | Treating physician/expert status supports broader discovery. | Not controlling; clarified Rediron displaced that rationale. |
| Whether the burden of producing non-existent documents defeats discovery. | Requests may seek non-existent documents;不能 compel fabrication. | Some data would exist in records; burdensome but discoverable if relevant. | Issue to be resolved on remand with Elkins guidance. |
| Whether distinctions from Rediron (multiple procedures, lack of lawyer referral) justify different outcome. | Different facts; Rediron should not control. | Rediron provides framework for scrutiny of bias and cost. | Not controlling; case to be decided on its own facts on remand. |
| What is the proper scope of discovery given burden, privacy, and relevance concerns. | Broad discovery necessary to assess cost, necessity, and potential bias. | Discovery should be narrowly tailored to avoid harassment and excessive burden. | Remand to trial court to determine appropriate scope under clarified Rediron. |
Key Cases Cited
- Katzman v. Rediron Fabrication, Inc., 76 So.3d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (clarified that referrers—not LOPs—inject into litigation; scope depends on facts)
- Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1996) (discovery not to be used to harass or impose undue burden; protect privacy)
- Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 522 (Fla. 1996) (additional discussion on burdens and privacy in discovery)
- Price v. Hannahs, 954 So.2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (non-existent documents not to be compelled)
- Sanchez v. Nerys, 954 So.2d 630 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (limits on producing non-existent or speculative documents)