WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
VARSENIG NAKUTIS, RESPONDENT
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.
Winn-Dixie Stores seeks to quash a discovery order requiring production of internally-generated accident reports from a slip-and-fall case, claiming the reports are protected work product. The appellate court grants the writ and quashes the discovery order, holding that work product cannot be disclosed without a showing of both need and inability to obtain substantial equivalents by other means.
The court holds that accident reports prepared in anticipation of litigation are work product entitled to protection, and discovery may be compelled only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery: (1) has need of the materials in preparing the case, and (2) is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means. A bare assertion of need is insufficient.
[1] Accident reports prepared by a party or its agents in anticipation of litigation constitute work product protected from discovery.
[2] Disclosure of work product requires a showing that the party seeking discovery needs the materials for its case preparation and cannot obtain the substantial equivalent b…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means may the court order disclosure of work product material”
Establishes the two-part test required for compelled disclosure of work product under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.280(b)(2)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Nakutis brought a slip-and-fall injury claim against Winn-Dixie and sought discovery of all internal accident reports from the store for th…
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 Substantial Equivalent cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is before us on a petition for Writ of Certiorari to the circuit court invoking our jurisdiction to quash a discovery order. Malt v. Simmons, 405 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Powell v. Wingard, 402 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). We grant the writ and quash the order. This is a slip and fall case and the plaintiff (respondent here) sought discovery of all internally produced accident reports relating to the particular grocery store where plaintiff claims injury for the years 1977 through the date of the alleged injury in this case. The trial judge granted the discovery but limited it to a period of three years just before the alleged injury.
Petitioner asserts the order requires the production of its “work product” without the required showing of good cause why such usually-protected-from-discovery 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 Rules of Civil Procedure, provides that “only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means” may the court order disclosure of work product material. Plaintiff merely alleged that “such reports and statements are within the limits of permissible discovery and plaintiff is in need of these documents for an effective presentation of her case.” A bare assertion that plaintiff is in need is insufficient to permit this kind of discovery. Seaboard Airline Railroad Company v. Timmons, 61 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1952); Speer v. Desrosiers, 361 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Also, there is no indication that the plaintiff could not obtain equivalent discovery by other means without undue hardship, as the rule requires.
Although the plaintiff urges the materials sought are not work product we cannot help but say otherwise. Work product is defined in Rule 1.280 as “... documents and tangible things ... prepared in anticipation of litigation.... ” It is hardly arguable that an accident report of a slip and fall incident in a grocery store, prepared by the grocery store employees or agents, is not a document prepared in anticipation of litigation. Those reports certainly are not prepared because of some morbid curiosity about how people fall at the market. Experience has shown all retail stores that people who fall in their stores try to be compensated for their injuries. Experience has also shown those stores that bogus or frivolous or exaggerated claims might be made. A potential defendant’s right to fully investigate and memorialize the results of the investigation should not be restricted any more than should a potential plaintiff’s. Our system of advocacy and dispute settlement by trial mandates that each side should be able to use its sources of investigation without fear of having to disclose it all to its opponents. This allows for free discussion and communication during preparation for litigation. If all reports and other communications of the litigants were available to the opposition then those communications would certainly be stilted, un-revealing and thus self-defeating in their purpose.
So, absent a showing of (1) a need and (2) an inability to otherwise obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship, the plaintiff is not entitled to compelled discovery of the accident reports.
Order QUASHED.
COBB and FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (36 total)
-
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley, 462 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…product will remain immune from discovery. See, e.g., Scotchel Enterprises, Inc. v. Velez, 455 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Wackenhut Corp. v. Crant-Heisz Enterprises, Inc., 451 So. 2d 900 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1984); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); pet. for review denied, 446 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1984); Cavalere v. Graham, 432 So. 2d 756 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Alachua General Hospital, Inc. v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Insurance Company of North Ameri…
-
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co., 515 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…that part of the order requiring production of documents and other memoranda. See Speer v. Desrosiers, 361 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Scotchel Enterprises, Inc. v. Velez, 455 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). [*1004] Petitioner also claims that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law when it failed to grant its motion for a protective order because of the expense and burden of compliance. We find no basis in t…
-
Anchor Nat'l Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Smeltz, 546 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)…tigative materials are privileged if compiled in response to some event which fore-seeably could be made the basis of a claim. See, e.g., Florida Cypress Gardens, Inc. v. Murphy, 471 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 446 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1984); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 271 So. 2d 146 (Fla.1972). Since the trial court found that the documents are not work product, she apparently did not det…
Previewing 3 of 36 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Timmons, 61 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1952)
- Vann v. State, 85 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 1956)
- Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Malt v. Simmons, 405 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- NEW Jersey Mfrs. Ins. Co. v. Barlow, 247 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)
- Am. Cas. Co. OF Reading PA. v. Brim's Food, Inc., 402 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Powell v. Wingard, 402 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Fogarty Bros. Transfer Co., Inc. v. Perkins, 250 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Speer v. Desrosiers, 361 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Limeburner, 390 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)