EASTERN AIR LINES, INC., FRANK BORMAN, THOMAS R. BUTTION AND WILLIAM G. BELL, PETITIONERS,
v.
DANIEL G. GELLERT, 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.
Eastern Air Lines sought certiorari to review a trial court's denial of a motion to compel production of a deposition and exhibit involving a letter from a bar grievance proceeding. The court held that both the complainant and the attorney subject to the grievance had waived any privilege of confidentiality by discussing and introducing the letter, making the waiver irrevocable.
The court held that both Gellert (the complaining witness) and the attorney (the alleged subject of the grievance) had waived any privilege of confidentiality by introducing and answering questions about the letter, and once a waiver of privilege occurs, it cannot be recanted.
[1] A privilege may be waived by the parties in interest, and once waived, it cannot be recanted.
[2] A party waives any privilege of confidentiality by introducing a document and propounding questions about it during a deposition.
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“Once a waiver of a privilege has occurred, it cannot be recanted.”
Establishes the irrevocable nature of privilege waiver, the central holding of the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring discovery in a defamation action between Gellert and Eastern Air Lines, Gellert's attorney took the deposition of an attorney who had represent…
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 Grievance Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
NESBITT, Judge.
Petitioners seek a writ of common law certiorari to review the trial court’s denial of their motion to compel production of a deposition and exhibit and its granting of the respondent’s cross-motion for a protective order. We grant certiorari and quash the orders under review.
Gellert and Eastern Air Lines are embroiled in an action and counterclaim for defamation. 438 So. 2d 923. During the course of preparation for trial, Gellert took the deposition of the attorney who represented his former wife in dissolution of marriage proceedings. On direct examination, several questions were propounded and answered concerning a letter which was identified as one written in the course of a grievance procedure initiated by Gel-lert against the attorney being deposed.
However, on cross-examination, the attorney refused to answer any further questions regarding the letter and also retrieved the document which had previously been marked as an exhibit. The basis for this action, according to the attorney, was that the document was privileged because it was part of a grievance proceeding conducted by the Florida Bar and as such he claimed privilege under Florida Bar Integration Rule, article 11, rule 11.12. When the deposition was transcribed, the exhibit and relevant portions of the transcript were omitted.
Subsequently, Eastern filed a motion to compel the production of the complete deposition and the attorney sought a protective order. The protective order was granted precipitating Eastern’s petition for certiorari. We admit that the record before us is scant.
However, it is clear that the letter contained a bar grievance number and both sides concede that some type of grievance proceeding had been instituted by Gellert against the attorney. It is also evident that Gellert, who was the complaining witness against the attorney, has waived any privilege of confidentiality which might have existed by introducing the letter and propounding questions to the wife’s attorney about it. The attorney who was the alleged subject of the grievance proceeding has waived any possible privilege in his favor by answering questions about the letter on direct examination. Once a waiver of a privilege has occurred, it cannot be recanted.
Therefore, we have little difficulty concluding that a waiver has occurred by the two parties in interest.
While we recognize that an argument may be made that our ruling today will have a chilling effect upon others who might want to bring their grievances before the bar, we conclude that this concern is minimal where both of the interested parties have waived any right they may have had to confidentiality. Nonetheless, because this issue presents a question of public importance, we certify the following question to the Supreme Court for resolution:
Where the principal parties (complainant and offending attorney) have waived any right which they may have had to confidentiality, does Integration Rule, article II, rule 11.12 provide any residual prohibition against a waiver?
Based on the foregoing, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the orders under review with directions to compel the production of the deposition and exhibit.