BROWARD MARINE, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN W. MCCALL, AS TRUSTEE, ETC., ET AL., 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.
Broward Marine sought to quash a discovery order requiring production of reports and photographs related to a yacht survey. The court granted the petition in part, finding the reports were protected as attorney work product but upholding the order to produce photographs based on an agreement between counsel.
The reports compiled by the named individuals were privileged as work product and their production could not be compelled; however, the order to produce photographs was proper based on an agreement between counsel to furnish them.
[1] Reports compiled by individuals attending a joint survey are privileged as work product.
[2] A writ of certiorari may be granted when an order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law.
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“They were clearly privileged as work product.”
The court's determination that the reports from the named individuals qualified for work product protection under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA trial court issued a discovery order directing Broward Marine to provide copies of reports compiled by five named individuals during a 1976 joint su…
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 Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
By Petition for Writ of Certiorari Bro-ward Marine, Inc., seeks quashal of an order of the trial court requiring petitioner to provide copies of “any and all reports compiled by Frank Dennison, Ken Morris, C. W. Dennision, Anthony Farone and Capt. Tom Smith during the calendar year of 1976 as a result of their attendance at the joint survey on board the yacht ‘SEACHEST’ in that year.” The order also required petitioner to furnish copies of all photographs taken by or on behalf of Broward Marine, Inc. From our examination of the petition and the responses we hold that there is no basis in this record to support the order to furnish the reports of the various named individuals. They were clearly privileged as work product. Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla.1970); Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Timmons, 61 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1952); Fiorida Power & Light Company v. Limeburner, 390 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). We have not overlooked the unusual feature of this case involving a similar order being entered against respondent on motion of a codefendant requiring production of similar information.1 However, on the principle that two wrongs do not make a right, we believe the order in question constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law which justifies the issuance of a writ of certiorari.
With regard to the photographs which were ordered produced, the record would support a finding by the trial court that there was an agreement between counsel to furnish those photographs, and thus that part of the order in question should not be disturbed.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and that part of the order requiring production of the reports is quashed.
MOORE and BERANEK, JJ., concur. . No review of that order was sought by any of the parties.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Patrian Smith v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 632 So. 2d 696 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…for further proceedings. . Certiorari is the appropriate method by which to review an order entered in connection with discovery proceedings. Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli, 621 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); see also Broward Marine, Inc. v. McCall, 392 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (certiorari granted to review and quash order compelling production of documents protected by attorney work product privilege). . FPL has never suggested that the documents sought were acquired illegally. It appears that plainti…
-
Bishopsgate Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Hull & Co., Inc., 475 So. 2d 1373 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…be discovered constitute either work product or are covered by the attorney-client privilege and that the respondents have failed to make the showing required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2). See, e.g., Broward Marine, Inc. v. McCall, 392 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) and Utica Mutual Insurance Company v. Croft, 432 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Our reversal is without prejudice, on remand, for the trial court’s further consideration of the issue pursuant to the provisions of Rule 1.280(b)…
Authorities Cited
- Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970)
- Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Timmons, 61 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1952)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Limeburner, 390 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Cipolloni v. Lewis, 390 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)