CARTAGENA
v.
MARTINO-VILLANUEVA
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 mere references to the presuit screening process in filings do not violate Florida law, absent improper discovery requests or presumption of admission at trial.
Defendant Women's Care Florida, LLC moved to strike plaintiffs' references to the presuit screening process and NICA documents in their filings. Plain…
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 Motion To Strike cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant Women’s Care Florida, LLC, moves to strike Plaintiffs’ references to the presuit screening process and NICA documents contained in their various filings. (Doc. 33; Doc. 34; Doc. 38; Doc. 39; Doc. 44; Doc. 45; Doc. 46; Doc. 47.) Plaintiffs oppose those motions. (Doc. 50.) Because the Plaintiffs’ references alone—absent an improper request for discovery or presumption of admission at trial—do not violate Florida law, the motions to strike are denied. Motions to strike are a “drastic remedy” and are “disfavored by the courts.” Schmidt v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 289 F.R.D. 357, 358 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (Kovachevich, J.); accord
Belmer v. Ezpawn Fila., Inc., No. 8:20-cv-1470, 2020 WL 7419663, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2020) (Covington, J.) (noting that a court has “broad discretion” to rule on a motion to strike but emphasizing that such motions are “drastic” and are often considered “time wasters”). As Women’s Care repeatedly notes, Florida law contains confidentiality protections surrounding work product generated during the presuit screening process. See § 766.205(4), Fla. Stat. (“No statement, discussion, written document, report, or other work product generated solely by the Presuit investigation is discoverable or admissible in any civil action for any purpose by the opposing party.”). But the statute’s language prohibits only formal discovery of work product generated solely by the presuit investigation process, see, e.g., Variety Children’s Hosp. v. Boice, 27 So. 3d 788, 790 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (preventing the “formal discovery” of presuit materials), and attempts to introduce presuit materials at trial, see, e.g., Cohen v. Dauphinee, 739 So. 2d 68, 72 (Fla. 1999). The authority Women’s Care cites to support its motions underscores this point. See Grimshaw v. Schwegel, 572 So. 2d 12, 13 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (holding privilege applied where the opposite party sought to “discover” privileged work product that the other party’s expert relied on during a deposition). The Court is aware of no Florida authority to support extending the presuit privilege to cover mere references to the process in court filings where, like here, no party is seeking formal discovery or permission to admit covered presuit materials. Accordingly, Defendant Women’s Care’s Motions to Strike (Doc. 33; Doc. 34; Doc. 38; Doc. 39; Doc. 44; Doc. 45; Doc. 46; Doc. 47) are DENIED. ORDERED in Tampa, Florida, on June 7, 2022.
tea Mizelle United States District Judge
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (38 total)
-
Cartagena v. Martino-Villanueva, 289 F.R.D. 357 (M.D. Fla. 2022)…s to strike are denied. Motions to strike are a “drastic remedy” and are “disfavored by the courts.” Schmidt v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 289 F.R.D. 357, 358 (M.D. Fla. 2012) (Kovachevich, J.); accord Belmer v. Ezpawn Fila., Inc., No. 8:20-cv-1470, 2020 WL 7419663, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2020) (Covington, J.) (noting that a court has “broad discretion” to rule on a motion to strike but emphasizing that such motions are “drastic” and are often considered “time wasters”). As Women’s Care repeatedl…1 / 2
-
S.Y. v. Naples Hotel Co., 476 F. Supp. 3d 1251 (M.D. Fla. 2020)…a. Sept. 8, 2008) (marks and citation omitted). It is not intended to “procure the dismissal of all or part of a complaint.” Id. Likewise, a motion to strike is a drastic remedy and is disfavored by the courts. Schmidt v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 289 F.R.D. 357, 358 (M.D. Fla. 2012). Therefore, a motion to strike should be granted only if “the matter sought to be omitted has no possible relationship to the controversy, may confuse the issues, or otherwise prejudice a party.” Id. Having reviewed the all…
-
United States v. Madison (M.D. Fla. 2025)…ial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.” An affirmative defense is “insufficient as a matter of law” only if it is “patently frivolous” on its face or if "it is clearly invalid as a matter of law." Belmer v. EZPawn Fla., Inc., 8:20-cv-1470-T- 33SPF, 2020 WL 7419663, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 28, 2020) (quoting Microsoft 6 ---PAGE 7--- Case 8:25-cv-00116-KKM-SPF Document 97 Filed 12/15/25 Page 7 of 32 PageID 716 Corp. v. Jesse's Computers & Repair, Inc., 211 F.R.D. 681, 683 (M.D. Fla. 2002)). But an affirmativ…
Previewing 3 of 38 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cartagena v. Martino-Villanueva, 289 F.R.D. 357 (M.D. Fla. 2022)
- Michael J. Cohen, M.D. v. Dauphinee, 739 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 1999)
- Variety Child's. Hosp. v. Boice, 27 So. 3d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)