MADELINE K. GROSS AND CHARLES H. MONAST, CO-PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF RAYMOND E. GROSS, DECEASED, AND MADELINE K. GROSS, INDIVIDUALLY, PETITIONERS,
v.
SECURITY TRUST COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, N/K/A NORTHERN TRUST BANK OF FLORIDA, N.A.,; ARCHBISHOP CARROLL CATHOLIC LIFE CENTER TRUST; HOLY CROSS HOSPITAL, A FLORIDA NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION; WILSON PETROLEUM CORPORATION; ENERGY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND FAITH M. WILLIAMSON, 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.
The court held that the attorney-client privilege has merit and requires relief in part, while denying the remaining contentions.
[1] A trial court's discovery order may be reviewed by certiorari when it violates the attorney-client privilege, as such privilege is outside the scope of discovery.
[2] A party's failure to assert attorney-client privilege at the earliest possible time does not preclude an in camera examination by the trial court to determine if the priv…
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 intelligenceThe petitioner sought certiorari regarding an order compelling the production of tapes. The petitioner argued attorney-client privilege and work produ…
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 In Camera Examination cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
This petition for certiorari is another round in the fight for the money left behind by Raymond E. Gross upon departing this world. The form of this round is in the production of tapes ordered by the trial court. Apparently, no one had reviewed the tapes prior to the entry of the trial court’s order; as petitioner’s counsel thereafter reviewed them and reacted to his discoveries by an unsuccessful motion for rehearing.1 When that failed he sought relief in the form of the present petition.
There are two separate, unrelated areas of discussion. The first, that of attorney-client privilege, has merit, and requires that we grant relief, in part because violation of the privilege is outside the scope of discovery, which is expressly limited to matters not privileged. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b).
Accordingly, while petitioner’s counsel obviously should have asserted privilege at the earliest time, his failure to do so will not prevent the trial court’s in camera examination of the tape to determine if privilege exists. We are not the first to hold as we now do upon the question of timeliness vis-a-vis privilege. See Insurance Company of North America v. Noya, 398 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). The judiciary of this state should protect communications which Floridians recognize as privileged, without being hobbled by less important considerations. Here, this privilege is belatedly said to exist on a tape of a meeting at which the attorneys, the decedent and his personal representative were present.
The trial court can see if the privilege applies, and if so, protect the tape’s confidentiality from this war over the decedent’s purse.
We view the other contention raised by petitioner as a specter, a shadow on the wall that does not warrant amplification. Accordingly, we deny the balance of the petition.
LETTS and HERSEY, JJ., concur. . The only objection petitioner made to production prior to the trial court’s order was on the basis of work product.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Austin v. Barnett Bank OF S. Fla., N.A., 472 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…orth America v. Noya, 398 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)), but to which objection is made for one of the reasons set forth in rule 1.280(c). Thus rule 1.380(d) does not require timely objection to privileged matters. See Gross v. Security Trust Co., 462 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We certify direct conflict with American Funding, Limited v. Hill, 402 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), on this issue. Where a claim of privilege is asserted, the trial court should hold an in camera inspection to review the d…
-
Bainter v. League OF Women Voters OF Fla., 150 So. 3d 1115 (Fla. 2014)…of this ease, primarily because the courts in those cases were reluctant to require production of potentially privileged material when the litigant reasonably did not discover the privilege until some later time. See, e.g., Gross v. See. Trust Co., 462 So. 2d 580, 581 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (observing that, while counsel “should have asserted privilege at the earliest time,” the failure to do so when “no one had reviewed the tapes” ordered produced by the trial court, would not “prevent the trial court’s in cam…
-
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Lease Am., Inc., 735 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…ed to be protected”), rev. dismissed, 558 So. 2d 20 (Fla.1990); Insurance Co. of N. Am. v. Noya, 398 So. 2d 836, 838 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)(failure to file timely objections does not bar party from asserting privilege). In Gross v. Security Trust Co., 462 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), a trial court order required the production of video tapes. As our opinion stated, “[apparently, no one had reviewed the tapes prior to the entry of the trial court’s order....” Id. at 580. When petitioner’s counsel reviewed the…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Noya, 398 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)