Patrowicz v. Wolff
110 So. 3d 973
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2013Background
- Patrowicz, as Personal Representative, petitions for writ of certiorari to quash a discovery order to produce documents allegedly protected by attorney-client privilege.
- Wolff sought a subpoena to Linde for the entire estate planning file, including communications between attorney and client.
- Linde objected; trial court overruled and ordered production without evidence on privilege.
- Linde based objection on attorney-client privilege; Wolff did not assert any privilege exceptions.
- Rule 1.351 objections are self-executing and require a deposition of the records custodian; the trial court failed to conduct an in camera privilege review.
- The court grants the petition, quashes the order, and remands for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court departed from essential requirements by ordering disclosure without privilege review | Patrowicz argues yes | Wolff argues no | Yes, order quashed |
| Whether an attorney-client privilege objection requires deposition and in camera review | Patrowicz relies on privilege; deposition required | Wolff's position relies on procedural rules | Yes, in camera review and deposition required |
| Whether certiorari review is proper to address erroneous privilege disclosure orders | Patrowicz seeks certiorari to correct departure | Wolff contends standard court reviews inquiry | Proper vehicle; certiorari granted |
| Whether the subpoena should have proceeded to deposition rather than hearing | Objection triggers deposition per Rule 1.351 | Proceedings improper; hearing acceptable | Deposition appropriate; order quashed |
Key Cases Cited
- Russell v. Stardust Cruisers, Inc., 690 So.2d 743 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (self-executing objection terminates subpoena process and requires deposition)
- ABC Liquors, Inc. v. Berkey, 589 So.2d 457 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (objection destroys production until deposition occurs)
- Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. Pope, 756 So.2d 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (basis for objection need not be specified until deposition)
- Bennett v. Berges, 84 So.3d 373 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (reviewable by certiorari; in camera review required for privilege)
- Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hess, 814 So.2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (in camera review consistent with privilege protection)
- Snyder v. Value Rent-A-Car, 736 So.2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (failure to address privilege before disclosure departs from essential requirements)