IN RE: AMENDMENT TO FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.280
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 has considered comments on the amendment to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280 and determined no further amendments are warranted at this time.
The Court had previously amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280 in August 2021, adding subdivision (h) to extend the 'apex doctrine' to the pri…
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.
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2023 In Re: Amendment to Florida SC2021-0929 Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280 The Court has considered the comments concerning Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280, which was amended in the opinion issued August 26, 2021. As no further amendments to the rule are warranted at this time, this case is hereby final. MUÑIZ, C.J., and CANADY, COURIEL, GROSSHANS, FRANCIS, and SASSO, JJ., concur. LABARGA, J., dissents with an opinion. LABARGA, J., dissenting.
In 2021, despite the robust discovery framework set forth in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, the majority concluded that there was a need for additional protections against abusive discovery tactics in the private sector. To that end, the majority unilaterally adopted new Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(h), which extended the “apex doctrine” to the private sector and granted special discovery protections to top-level corporate decision makers. See In re Amend. to Fla. Rule of Civ. Proc. 1.280, 324 So. 3d 459 (Fla. 2021). CASE NO.: SC2021-0929 Page Two I dissented to the majority’s unilateral action because the existing Florida Rules of Civil Procedure were adequate to address the majority’s concerns about abusive discovery tactics—and the rules remain adequate to do so. Id. at 464-65 (Labarga, J., dissenting). As such, I continue to deem the adoption of rule 1.280(h) unwarranted.
I respectfully dissent to today’s order because the majority, having considered the comments filed in response to the adoption of rule 1.280(h), has determined that the rule should remain as originally adopted.
A True Copy Test:
SC2021-0929 11/2/2023
SC2021-0929 11/2/2023
SO Served: JOSHUA E. DOYLE HEATHER S. TELFER JENNIFER MARIE VOSS CHRISTOPHER J. BAUM CASE NO.: SC2021-0929 Page Three JUDSON LEE COHEN WILLIAM W. LARGE HON. ASHLEY MOODY FRANK CRUZ-ALVAREZ ROBERT L. CHRISTIE HENRY C. WHITAKER KANSAS R. GOODEN DANIEL B. ROGERS DANIEL W. BELL CHRISTOPHER G. BURNS JOHN W. HOGAN