SEARS, ROEBUCK AND COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
MARY M. SCOTT, 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.
Sears prevailed in obtaining a writ of certiorari to quash an order compelling production of incident reports prepared in anticipation of litigation, which are protected from discovery under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2).
Incident reports prepared by Sears pursuant to a written procedure established by regional counsel for anticipating litigation and furnished to counsel and insurance carriers are protected from discovery as work product.
[1] Incident reports prepared pursuant to a written procedure established by counsel in anticipation of litigation and furnished to counsel and insurance carriers are protect…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSears was ordered to produce an incident report concerning a slip and fall that occurred in one of its stores. Sears established through unrebutted ev…
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 Anticipation Of Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We sua sponte consolidate these actions and grant the petition for writ of certiorari in case No. 85-1675 and quash the order compelling production of an “incident report” on a slip and fall which occurred in a Sears store. Sears argues that the only evidence submitted to the trial court established that the incident report was prepared in anticipation of litigation and therefore protected. Cf. Cotton States Mutual Insurance Co. v. Turtle Reef Assoc., 444 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Although it is apparent that the reports are routinely prepared by Sears, it is equally apparent by the evidence presented that the purpose of the report is to prepare for litigation. Sears made an unrebutted showing that each report is prepared pursuant to a written procedure established by its regional counsel for anticipating litigation and that the report is then furnished to regional counsel, who in turn provides the information to Sears’ liability insurance carrier. Such materials are protected from discovery under the provisions of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2).
Cf. Airocar, Inc. v. Goldman, 474 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).
We also grant the petitions in case Nos. 85-2408 and 85-2728 to the extent that the orders involved therein conflict with this opinion.
HERSEY, C.J., and ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gelco Corp. v. Escambia Cnty., 649 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…iew 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). And see Alachua Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Scott, 481 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Hospital Corp. of Am. v. Dixon, 330 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1976). The petition is denied, however, as to that portion of the order requiring petitioner Flood to submit to a second depositi…
-
Fed. Express Corp. v. Cantway, 778 So. 2d 1052 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…f Trs. of Miami-Dade Cnty. Coll. v. Chao, 739 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); City of Sarasota v. Colbert, 97 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957). Moreover, a report that is routinely prepared may still be work product. See Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Scott, 481 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). The fact that the manuals reviewed by the trial court “speak of prevention as the reason for requiring said reports” and do not mention use of the reports for litigation purp…
-
Waste Mgmt. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 544 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…on our limited record, much of the requested material does appear to include work product. Compare Shell v. State Road Dept., 135 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1961); Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Allen, 40 So. 2d 115 (Fla.1949); Sears, Roebuck and Co. v. Scott, 481 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Karch v. MacKay, 453 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Florida Power & Light Co. v. Limeburner, 390 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Albertsons, Inc. v. Howells, 518 So. 2d 291 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Florida Cypress Gardens, Inc. v. M…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Assocs., Inc., 444 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Airocar, Inc. v. Goldman, 474 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)