Millard Services, Inc., etc. and Sunrise Mills (MLP) Limited Partnership, etc. v. Mary Bolda
155 So. 3d 1272
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Mary Bolda sued Millard Mall Services, Inc. and Sunrise Mills LP for negligence after an alleged slip-and-fall at Sawgrass Mills Mall in March 2011.
- Bolda subpoenaed the mall’s corporate representative for documents including Quarterly Safety Committee Reports and incident/maintenance records (three years pre-incident and 2011 maintenance).
- Defendants objected, asserting work-product privilege for the Committee Reports and related internal incident materials; the trial court reviewed the materials in camera.
- The trial court ordered production of Quarterly Safety Committee Reports from 2008 through the incident date but sustained privilege as to the incident report about Bolda’s fall.
- Defendants sought certiorari review; the Fourth District concluded the Committee Reports were prepared in anticipation of litigation and quashed the trial court’s production order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Quarterly Safety Committee Reports are protected as work product ("prepared in anticipation of litigation"). | Reports about prior incidents are discoverable; relevance to foreseeability/regularity. | Reports were prepared in anticipation of litigation and reflect internal investigative work; protected by Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(4). | Court: Reports are work product and protected; production order quashed. |
| Whether Bolda showed particularized need and undue hardship to overcome work-product protection and obtain the substantial equivalent. | Bolda asserted need for prior-incident information and argued she could not obtain equivalent material without undue hardship. | Defendants argued Bolda could obtain substantially equivalent information through ordinary discovery methods already used. | Court: Bolda did not meet the heavy burden; she had obtained substantially equivalent information by other discovery, so privilege stands. |
Key Cases Cited
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1994) (work-product protection and need/undue hardship test)
- Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970) (rare and exceptional circumstances required to overcome work product)
- Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Doe, 964 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (incident reports sent to risk management and intended to defend potential litigation are work product)
- Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Anderson, 92 So. 3d 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (investigative reports in retail context can be work product)
- Metric Eng’g, Inc. v. Small, 861 So. 2d 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (work-product protection extends to corporate non-attorney employees' materials)