Lacaretta Restaurant v. Zepeda
115 So. 3d 1091
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- E/C petitions for writ of certiorari from a JCC discovery order.
- Order compelled disclosure of Notes A and B in E/C's paperless system.
- Notes A and B are claimed to be protected by attorney-client and work product privileges.
- Court analyzes certiorari standards: irreparable harm and departure from essential requirements of law.
- Petition granted; order quashed in part to the extent of Notes A and B disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Notes A and B protected by attorney-client privilege? | Notes memorialize attorney communications; privilege applies. | Notes are internal records; disclosure should not be barred by privilege. | Notes A and B privileged; disclosure quashed. |
| Does the discovery order meet certiorari requirements? | Disclosure of privileged notes constitutes irreparable harm and essential-law departure. | Order is a correct exercise of discovery; no irreparable harm shown. | Order sustained as to privilege; certiorari granted to quash disclosure of Notes A and B. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reeves v. Fleetwood Homes of Fla., Inc., 889 So.2d 812 (Fla. 2004) (irreparable harm criterion for certiorari)
- Spry v. Prof'l Employer Plans, 985 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (irreparable harm considerations for certiorari)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Fla. 1995) (privilege discovery consequences and irreparable harm)
- Martin-Johnson v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla. 1987) (irreparable harm standard in privilege context)
- Haines City Cmty. Dev. v. Heggs, 658 So.2d 523 (Fla. 1995) (departure from essential requirements of law; miscarriage of justice)
- Hagans v. Gatorland Kubota, LLC/Sentry Ins., 45 So.3d 73 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (chilling effect on attorney-client communications)
- Combs v. State, 436 So.2d 93 (Fla. 1983) (foundation for essential illegality concept in certiorari)