Selton v. Nelson
201 So. 3d 827
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Petitioners (Selton, Paulucci family members) sought certiorari to quash a trial-court order requiring them to produce sworn witness statements to Respondents (Nelson and Simmons, trustees).
- The trial court compelled production solely because the documents were sworn affidavits; it did not perform an in camera review or find any exception to the work-product rule.
- Respondents did not show that any exception to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b) applied or that they could not obtain equivalent information without undue hardship.
- Petitioners asserted the statements were protected work product prepared in anticipation of litigation.
- The Fifth District reviewed whether the discovery order departed from the essential requirements of the law and whether that error caused irreparable harm warranting certiorari relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sworn witness statements must be produced | Petitioners: sworn statements are work product and protected | Respondents: affidavits should be discoverable because they are sworn | Court: statements are presumptively work product; production cannot be compelled absent exceptions or in camera review |
| Whether trial court erred by ordering production solely because statements were sworn | Petitioners: swearing does not waive work-product protection | Respondents: form (sworn) justifies disclosure | Court: ordering solely on that basis departs from law |
| Whether trial court needed to conduct in camera inspection or make findings of exception/undue hardship | Petitioners: court must inspect or find an exception/undue hardship before ordering production | Respondents: inspection/finding unnecessary here | Court: in camera inspection or findings required; absence is error |
| Whether the error merits certiorari relief | Petitioners: disclosure of protected material causes irreparable harm and cannot be cured on appeal | Respondents: error, if any, can be remedied on appeal | Court: certiorari granted because discovery of protected material risks irreparable harm and appeal is inadequate |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Barfield, 35 So. 3d 953 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (certiorari is an extraordinary remedy)
- Capital One, N.A. v. Forbes, 34 So. 3d 209 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (certiorari standards: departure, material injury, no adequate appellate remedy)
- Seminole Cnty. v. Wood, 512 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (discovery orders affecting privilege may be reviewed by certiorari)
- Cape Canaveral Hosp., Inc. v. Leal, 917 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (discovery of protected material can cause irreparable harm)
- Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Anderson, 92 So. 3d 922 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (witness statements prepared for litigation are generally work product)
- Honey Transp., Inc. v. Ruiz, 893 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (work-product protection for prelitigation witness statements)
- Dade Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Soler By & Through Soler, 534 So. 2d 884 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (statements obtained in anticipation of litigation are generally privileged; exceptions are rare)
- New Life Acres, Inc. v. Strickland, 436 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (quashing order to disclose sworn statement that was work product where no rule exception applied)
- Ashemimry v. Ba Nafa, 847 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (error to order discovery of statements prepared for criminal prosecution without in camera inspection or findings)