GARY MAGUIRE, EPOCH PROPERTIES, AND CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
The Florida District Court of Appeal held that the State's interest in obtaining evidence for a criminal prosecution outweighs petitioners' work product privilege, requiring production of investigation records and witness statements to a criminal defendant despite a civil liability insurer's assertion of work product protection.
The work product privilege does not bar production of evidence pursuant to a State subpoena in a criminal case. The State's right to obtain evidence for criminal prosecution is more important to society and the public interest than the petitioners' work product privilege based on civil procedure rules.
[1] A work product privilege is not a bar to the production of evidence pursuant to a state subpoena in a criminal case.
[2] The state's right to obtain evidence for use in a criminal case may outweigh a work product privilege in certain circumstances.
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“Under the circumstances of this case the State's right to obtain evidence for use in a criminal case is more important to society and the public interest than petitioners' work product privilege which is based on a court approved civil rule of procedure.”
Establishes the court's holding that the public interest in criminal prosecution outweighs work product privilege in this context.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceContinental Casualty Company, liability insurer for apartment properties managed by Epoch Properties, employed an independent adjusting agency to inve…
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 Discovery Of Witness Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Epoch Properties manages certain apartments and has liability insurance with Continental Casualty Company. A burglary and sexual assault occurred at the apart ments. Continental Casualty employed an independent adjusting agency to investigate the incident. Gary Maguire, an individual adjuster, investigated and made recordings of statements (and written transcripts of the recorded statements) of the alleged rape victim and of one Johnny Lee Siplin, an employee of Epoch Properties. Siplin was thereafter accused and criminally charged with the burglary and sexual assault. In the criminal case the State subpoenaed Gary Maguire and required production of the original tapes of the statements, or written transcripts thereof, and all records of his investigation of the sexual assault.1 Maguire, Epoch Properties and Continental Casualty Company moved to quash the subpoena duces tecum and moved for a protective order asserting a work product privilege and from a denial of those motions they seek certiorari review in this court.
We deny the petition for writ of certiorari. Under the circumstances of this case the State’s right to obtain evidence for use in a criminal case is more important to society and the public interest than petitioners' work product privilege which is based on a court approved civil rule of procedure.2 This ease does not involve any claim by Mr. Siplin, the defendant in the criminal case, as to constitutional rights against self-incrimination or interference with the constitutional right to counsel or attorney-client, or other privilege.3 Furthermore, our holding that petitioners’ work product privilege is not a bar to production of evidence pursuant to a State subpoena in a criminal case does not necessarily mean that petitioners will be unable to successfully assert a work product privilege in any civil case to which they are parties.4
The petition for writ of certiorari is
DENIED.
COBB, C.J., and DAUKSCH, J., concur. . The trial court found that the liability insurer, in anticipation of litigation, employed the independent adjusting agency to investigate the assault; based on this finding we have assumed that Maguire’s records of investigation and the statements of witnesses were work product. Cf. Selected Risks Insurance Co. v. White, 447 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(2). See generally Imparato v. Spicola, 238 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970).
. Cf. Briggs v. Salcines, 392 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980).
. If the rape victim sues the apartment manager in negligence and she is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of Siplin’s relevant statement by other means, she may be entitled to it although work-product. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(2).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…ith a cause which is initiated subsequent to the completed litigation for which the work product was created. See In re Grand Jury Matters, 593 F.Supp. 103 (D.N.H.), aff'd, 751 F. 2d 13 (1st Cir.1984); In re Grand Jury Proceedings; Maguire v. State, 458 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Based on the foregoing discussion, . we conclude that the state is entitled to all the factual information which Diaz transmitted to Rabin during their conversation but is not entitled to Rabin’s opinion work product. The trial…
-
James S. Turner & the Hertz Corp. v. State, 478 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985)…DAUKSCH, Judge, concurring specially: While I agree this petition should be denied on the authority of Maguire v. State, 458 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984) I write to clarify a point for the petitioner. Here, a car rental company seeks to prohibit the state from subpoenaing its work product. The state seeks to obtain an accident investigation report prepared in anticipation of civil…1 / 2
-
Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Jane DOE (N.N.), 868 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004)…). We disagree with the respondent’s arguments. First, although Carnival disclosed the witness statements to the FBI, the disclosure was not voluntary because Carnival’s action was in response to a federal grand jury subpoena. See Maguire v. State, 458 So. 2d 311, 312 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)(stating that “our holding that petitioners’ work product privilege is not a bar to production of evidence pursuant to State subpoena in a criminal case does not necessarily mean that petitioners will be unable to successfull…
Authorities Cited
- Briggs v. Salcines, 392 So. 2d 263 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Imparato v. Spicola, 238 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970)
- Selected Risks Ins. Co. v. White, 447 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)