Katzman v. Rediron Fabrication, Inc.
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 20450
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Petitioner seeks rehearing, rehearing en banc, clarification, and certiorari on a discovery order.
- Florida Justice Association filed an amicus brief raising new issues not argued by the parties.
- Defendant sought production of financial information from Dr. Katzman arising from a letter of protection in a tort suit.
- Trial court ordered limited disclosures: annual amounts collected from health insurers and letters of protection for 2007–2010.
- Katzman contested the discovery as overbroad, unduly burdensome, and outside Elkins v. Syken and Rule 1.280(b)(4)(A) limits.
- Court declines rehearing, grants clarification, withdraws prior opinion, and affirms the discovery order as within trial court discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over certiorari | Katzman argues certiorari review is proper for improper discovery. | Rediron contends certiorari is appropriate only for essential-law departures with no adequate post-appeal remedy. | Certiorari not available to review overbreadth; limited to essential-law departures |
| Scope of financial bias discovery for a treating expert | Elkins and Rule 1.280(b)(4)(A) restrict broad financial bias discovery from retained experts. | Discovery may extend to case-specific financials for bias and cost-claims related to the procedure. | Limited, case-specific financial discovery justified; not a per se ban on financial discovery from treating experts |
| Balance of interests between privacy and need for information | Gathering private financial info is unnecessary and invasive for an expert witness. | Discovery is necessary to assess reasonableness of charges and frequency of the procedure in litigation. | Trial court acted within broad discretion; intrusion justified by unusual/compelling circumstances |
| Application of Elkins/Boeccher framework to a physician referred by counsel | Katzman is an expert; Elkins controls the discovery scope. | Circumstances differ from Elkins; Boecher supports broader inquiry into financial relations with the expert. | Boeccher/Elkins framework applied; discovery allowed to obtain case-specific financial information |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Fla. 1995) (certiorari for discovery orders that depart from essential requirements)
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 1987) (certiorari appropriate when no adequate remedy on appeal)
- Syken v. Elkins, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla. 1996) (limits on financial bias discovery for retained experts)
- Elkins v. Syken, 644 So.2d 589 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (discovery of private financial information by experts)
- Boecher, Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993 (Fla. 1999) (distinguishes between party and expert financial discovery)
- Hasson v. Columbia Hosp. (Palm Beaches) Ltd. P’ship, 33 So.3d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (discovery of medical expenses to assess reasonableness)
- Price v. Hannahs, 954 So.2d 97 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (limits on financial bias discovery; context of Elkins rule)
- Columbia Hosp. (Palm Beaches) Ltd. P’ship v. Hasson, 33 So.3d 148 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (recognizes discovery of charges for a procedure to assess reasonableness)
- Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 641 So.2d 855 (Fla. 1994) (trial courts may control discovery; avoid harassment)
- Topp Telecom, Inc. v. Atkins, 763 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (limits on overbroad or burdensome discovery in appellate review)
- Cmtys. Fin. Co. v. Bjork, 987 So.2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (burdensomeness limits in discovery)