RONALD L. RUHLAND, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
ROBERT E. GIBEAULT, 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.
In this discovery dispute, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the attorney work product privilege protects documents from closed litigation files and does not expire merely because a case has concluded. The court quashed a trial court order compelling production of insurance claim files from a prior unrelated accident.
The work product privilege does not expire when litigation ends or a file is closed. Documents prepared in anticipation of litigation remain protected by the work product privilege in subsequent proceedings. The burden rests on the party seeking to overcome a work product objection to demonstrate need for the documents and inability to obtain their substantial equivalent by other means.
[1] The work product privilege does not expire when a litigation file is closed.
[2] Documents prepared in anticipation of litigation are protected by the work product privilege, even if the underlying litigation has concluded.
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“the work product privilege does not end when the litigation ends”
Establishes that work product protection survives the conclusion of the original case, contrary to the trial court's ruling.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants in a negligence action arising from a March 16, 1983 motor vehicle collision were served with a discovery request for documentary evidence …
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
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
COBB, Judge.
The petitioners, defendants in a negligence action, were served by the plaintiffs with a request to produce, inter alia, 1) all documentary proof that injuries claimed by the plaintiff, Robert Gibeault, were the result of some incident other than an inter-sectional collision dated March 16, 1983, and 2) all documentary proof referring to Gibeault in possession of defendants or their agents prior to that date. The request was directed to claims files in the possession of Liberty Mutual, which insures the defendants in the present action and also insured another litigant sued by Gibeault as the result of a 1979 collision, which did not involve these defendants.
The trial court denied the defendants’ objections, which were based on work product, and certiorari is sought to review that order.
At the hearing on the defense objections, the plaintiffs made no showing or contention, per Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2), that the requested materials were necessary for preparation of their case and they were unable without undue hardship to secure their substantial equivalent by other means.
The trial court’s ruling was based on the fact that the earlier accident files were closed.
As for the trial court’s determination that the work product privilege expires when a case file is closed, the petitioners cite to the case of Alachua General Hospital, Inc. v. Zimmer U.S.A., Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), which held that the work product privilege does not end when the litigation ends. A number of Federal cases are in accord. See e.g., U.S. v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 542 F. 2d 655 (6th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 430 U.S. 945, 97 S.Ct. 1579, 51 L.Ed.2d 792 (1977); In re Murphy, 560 F. 2d 326 (8th Cir.1977); and Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 F. 2d 480 (4th Cir.1973).
There appears to be no question that the information sought in the request to produce relates to information developed in anticipation of litigation, since, in fact, the respondents did sue Liberty Mutual’s insured in the 1979 incident. Furthermore, the respondents do not argue that the request does not include items prepared in anticipation of litigation. Pursuant to the law set forth above, those documents generated in the original litigation involving the respondents and another Liberty Mutual insured are protected by the work product privilege,1 even though the file is closed.
Clearly, the burden is on the party who seeks to overcome a work product objection to show a need for the documents sought and demonstrate that they are unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the equivalent by any other means. Traditionally, such discovery orders are reviewable by certiorari where plenary appeal would not preclude irreparable injury. See Powell v. Wingard, 402 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Insurance Company of North America v. Noya, 398 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Boucher v. Pure Oil Company, 101 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957).
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court’s order compelling discovery of the documentary materials indicated above, without prejudice to the right of the respondents to make the showing required by Rule 1.280(b)(2), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
QUASHED.
DAUKSCH and SHARP, JJ., concur. . See, e.g., Walt Disney World Co. v. Cotto, 462 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 446 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1984); Cavalere v. Graham, 423 So. 2d 428 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Fla. Ins. Co. v. Marascuillo, 161 So. 3d 493 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…Privilege, under Rule 26(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as Applicable to Documents Prepared in Anticipation of Terminated Litigation, 41 A.L.R. Fed. 128 (2014). This is the rule explicitly adopted in Florida. See Ruhland v. Gibeault, 495 So. 2d 1243, 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (holding that the work product privilege does not expire when a case is closed); Alachua Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Zimmer U.S.A., Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (holding that the work product privilege extends beyond t…
-
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Gizela von Hohenberg and Mario Sorrentino, 595 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…ermore, the burden is on the party who seeks to overcome a work product objection to show a need for the documents sought and demonstrate that they are unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the equivalent by any other means. Ruhland v. Gibeault, 495 So. 2d 1243, 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Clearly, the instant order was overbroad. Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the trial court’s blanket discovery order, without prejudice to the right of respondents to make the showing required by Florida Rule…
-
Millard Mall Servs., Inc. v. Bolda, 155 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…the investigative work product of his adversary where the same or similar information is available through ordinary investigative techniques and discovery procedures”) (quoting Dodson v. Persell, 390 So. 2d 704, 708 (Fla.1980)); Ruhland v. Gibeault, 495 So. 2d 1243, 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986) (“Clearly, the burden is on the party who seeks to overcome a work product objection to show a need for the documents sought and demonstrate that they are unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the equivalent by any othe…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (13 total)
- Boucher v. The Pure OIL Co., 101 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- Mitchell v. United States, 430 U.S. 945 (U.S. 1977)
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Varsenig Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- In re Subpoena addressed to Samuel W. Murphy, Jr. v. Pfizer Inc., 560 F.2d 326 (8th Cir. 1977)
- Citizens & S. Nat'l Bank v. United States, 430 U.S. 945 (U.S. 1977)
- Alachua Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- United States v. Leggett & Platt, Inc., 542 F.2d 655 (6th Cir. 1976)
- Ins. Co. OF N. Am. v. Noya, 398 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- The Duplan Corp. v. Moulinage et Retorderie de Chavanoz, 487 F.2d 480 (4th Cir. 1973)
- Am. Cas. Co. OF Reading PA. v. Brim's Food, Inc., 402 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)