FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
WAYNE LIMEBURNER, REGGIE BENNETT, ROBERT GREER, D/B/A HOLIDAY PLAZA MOBILE HOME PARK, AND AVANTI RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
Florida Power & Light sought certiorari review of a trial court discovery order requiring production of personal injury accident reports. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted certiorari, quashing the order and holding that the accident reports constituted protected work product that defendant was not required to disclose, despite having already voluntarily produced a list of similar accidents with names, addresses, and dates.
The accident reports constitute protected work product and are not subject to disclosure under discovery rules. Although a party must divulge names and addresses of persons with relevant information and generally indicate the type of information held, a party is not required to disclose the contents of statements or the attorney's evaluation of statements prepared in anticipation of trial, absent rare and exceptional circumstances.
[1] Discovery orders that constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law are reviewable by common law certiorari.
[2] Accident reports prepared by a corporation in anticipation of litigation are considered work product.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“[A] party may be required to respond on behalf of himself, his attorney, agent, or employee and to divulge names and addresses of any person having relevant information as well as to indicate generally the type of information held by the person listed. A party may not be required to set out the contents of statements, absent rare and exceptional circumstances, or to divulge his or his attorneys' evaluation of the substance of statements taken in preparation for trial.”
Establishes the distinction between discoverable factual information (names, addresses, types of information) and protected work product (contents of statements and attorney evaluations prepared for litigation).
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff in a personal injury action sought discovery of accident reports from defendant Florida Power & Light. Defendant had voluntarily produced a …
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 Anticipation Of Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a petition for common law certiorari seeking to review, an order entered by the trial court on a discovery issue in a personal injury action. Through discovery efforts, plaintiff secured from defendant a list of twenty-seven similar accidents within a period of three years preceding the accident in question. This list of twenty-seven similar accidents was voluntarily produced by defendant and included dates, names, and addresses. Thereafter, plaintiff sought production of personal injury accident reports prepared by the defendant corporation regarding each accident. Defendant objected to this discovery urging that the reports were work product prepared in anticipation of litigation and that the facts in the reports were available to the plaintiff. The Circuit Court ordered that the reports be turned over to plaintiff. The defendant has petitioned this Court for review via certiorari.
We conclude that the order below constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law which will not be subject to correction after final judgment. The major issue in controversy before this Court is whether there was actually a demonstration that the reports constituted work product. We have reviewed the evidence on this subject and conclude that the reports fall within the definition of work product. See Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla.1970), wherein the Court discussed the definition of work product and held in relevant part as follows:
[A] party may be required to respond on behalf of himself, his attorney, agent, or employee and to divulge names and addresses of any person having relevant information as well as to indicate generally the type of information held by the person listed. A party may not be required to set out the contents of statements, absent rare and exceptional circumstances, or to divulge his or his attorneys’ evaluation of the substance of statements taken in preparation for trial.
Here, the defendant has already divulged the names, addresses, and dates of other similar accidents within a three-year period prior to the accident in question. We conclude that the reports pertaining to the accidents were, based on the evidence before the trial court, prepared in anticipation of litigation and that the Court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering their disclosure. See Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), cert. denied, 271 So. 2d 146 (Fla.1972).
The petition for certiorari is granted and the order below quashed.
LETTS, C. J., and MOORE and BERA-NEK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Cunningham v. Anchor Hocking Corp., 558 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…orney, agent, or employee and to divulge names and addresses of any person having relevant information as well as to indicate generally the type of information held by the person listed, [emphasis added] See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Limeburner, 390 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). The rule is stated in Dade County School Board v. Soler, 534 So. 2d 884, 885 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988), as follows: Although a party may be ordered to provide the names and addresses of individuals who have furnished statements in ant…
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Varsenig Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…y material should be disclosed. Petitioner says incident reports prepared by a party in anticipation of litigation are work product of the party and its attorneys. Vann v. State, 85 So. 2d 133 (Fla.1956); Florida Power & Light Company v. Lineburner, 390 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Fogarty v. Brothers Transfer Company v. Perkins, 250 So. 2d 655 (Fla.2d DCA 1971); Grand Union v. Patrick, 247 So. 2d 474, 475 (Fla.3d DCA 1971); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Rule 1.280(b)(2), Florida Ru…
-
Caterpillar Indus., Inc. v. Keskes, 639 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970)
- Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Adela Davis v. Jewish Vocational Rehabilitation Workshop, 271 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1972)