EQUIFAX CORPORATION, COLONIAL LIFE AND ACCIDENT INSURANCE CO., AND THE COMMERCIAL UNION ASSURANCE COMPANIES, PETITIONERS,
v.
THE HONORABLE RICHARD H. COOPER, CIRCUIT COURT, NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT AND MILDRED O. HYMAN, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court granted a writ of certiorari to reverse a trial court order requiring Equifax and insurance companies to produce investigative films and reports. The court held that discovery materials prepared independently by an investigatory agency, not at a party's request, were not subject to compulsory production because they failed to meet the threshold relevancy requirement of the discovery rules.
The court held that the investigative materials need not be produced because they fail to satisfy the threshold relevancy requirement under Rule 1.280(b)(1), which requires materials to be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action or reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. The court declined to expand the work product privilege to cover materials prepared by third parties unrelated to the litigation.
[1] The work product privilege under Rule 1.280(b)(2), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, does not apply when the materials sought were not prepared by or at the request of an…
[2] Discovery materials must be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence before the work…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the literal language of Rule 1.280(b)(2), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the work product rule, excludes the application of that limited privilege here”
Establishes that the work product privilege does not apply where investigations were not made by or at the request of any defendant
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMildred Hyman was a plaintiff in litigation. Equifax Corporation, Colonial Life and Accident Insurance Co., and Commercial Union Assurance Companies s…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Work Product Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, GEORGE W., Associate Judge.
This matter was commenced by the filing of an “Emergency Petition for Writ of Prohibition, or, in the alternative, Emergency Petition for Certiorari and Stay in Relation Thereto.”
By Order of this Court, dated December 15, 1978:
(1) respondent was commanded to show cause why the petition for writ of certiorari should not be granted;
(2) a stay of the order of the trial court was granted pending disposition of the petition for writ of certiorari; and (3) the petition for writ of prohibition was denied. We now grant the petition for certiorari.
We are asked by petitioners to reverse an order of the trial court requiring the production of films and reports and related documents. These materials resulted from investigations of the plaintiff, respondent here, and were made by an agency engaged in that business. The record is clear and counsel for the defendants stated that the investigations were not made by or at the request of any defendant or any other party to this litigation. Thus, the literal language of Rule 1.280(b)(2), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the work product rule, excludes the application of that limited privilege here. We are urged by petitioners to go beyond that literal language, however, to adopt a rule that would make the work product limited privilege available where one or more of the parties has an interest in other but related litigation. We feel no compulsion to do so on the record before us.
An agent of the investigatory agency appeared pursuant to a subpoena duces tecum and presented three surveillance films, together with a report concerning the conditions of surveillance. The record indicates that no other materials in the possession or under the control of the agency or its representatives are to be used in the litigation. But more importantly to this determination, nowhere in the record is there any showing that the materials sought are “relevant to the subject matter of the pending action . . . [or] . appear(s) reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(1). This rule must be satisfied before the work product rule becomes operative. The gratuitous speculation of counsel, contained in a document filed with this Court, as to the “possible” use of such material does not stand as a satisfactory substitute for some evidence of relevancy contained in the record. We reiterate for emphasis the fact that the materials sought were not prepared by or for any party to this action. The fact that the. report pertains to plaintiff is not a sufficient connec tion, standing alone, to support intrusion of the issue into this lawsuit. Any other rule would transform every lawsuit into a fishing expedition, and would seriously impede the orderly and expeditious disposition of litigation.
Accordingly, we grant the writ of certiorari and quash the order under review and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.
DOWNEY, JAMES C. and ANSTEAD, HARRY LEE, Associate Judges, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
The Everglades Protective Syndicate, Inc. v. Makinney, 391 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…ocedure, they are appropriate and the order in question would withstand our scrutiny. Material sought to be discovered must relate to the issues involved in the [*264] litigation in which an attempt to compel is made. Equifax Corporation v. Cooper, 380 So. 2d 514 (Fla.5th DCA 1980). In a mandamus proceeding such as the one in the court below, the basic issues to be determined are whether the relator has a right to the performance of some act and whether the respondent has the correlative duty to perform that…
-
The Edward B. Freeman Co. v. Roxine Fagen, 461 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…espondents are not seeking punitive damages, and since they have made no showing that the sought-after information is relevant to this litigation, we grant the writ and quash the trial court’s order on the authority of Equifax Corporation v. Cooper, 380 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), and Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(1). HERSEY, HURLEY and BARKETT, JJ„ concur.…
-
Orange Lake Country Club, Inc. v. Levin, 633 So. 2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…93), the court held that unproven utterances documented only by an attorney are not facts that can be acknowledged by the trial or appellate court. See also Schneider v. Currey, 584 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991). Likewise, in Equifax Corp. v. Cooper, 380 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), this court held that the gratuitous speculation of counsel as to the possible use of material sought in discovery does not stand as satisfactory evidence of relevancy. Even assuming that counsel’s allegations are true and that…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence