LAKE

v.

CHARLOTTE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Quash Subpoenas (Doc. 43)1, to which Defendant filed a response (Doc. 46). Plaintiff Richard D. Lake, as Trustee, seeks to quash subpoenas served on two non-parties, Cyndi Tarapani and Laura Rossi.² For the following reasons, the Court grants the motion.

Tarapani and professional engineer Laura Rossi. (Doc. 43, p. 1; Doc. 46, p. 2). Lake retained Tarapani and Rossi to testify as experts during a 2019 land-use hearing. (Doc. 43, p. 1). As a result, Lake’s counsel exchanged numerous emails with Tarapani, Rossi, and Lake, which Lake claims contained counsel’s work product relating to the strategy at the hearing and related matters. (Doc. 43, p. 2). Charlotte County served Tarapani and Rossi with subpoenas for production of documents. From both Tarapani and Rossi, the County seeks: “Any communications between you and Richard Lake (or his agents) pertaining to the use, planning, or development of Parcel A, B, C and/or Lot 1.” (Docs. 43-1, p. 16; 43-2, p. 6). Lake claims that these subpoenas seek work-product materials and should be quashed, citing Rules 26(b)(1) and 45(d)(3)(A)(iii).

Rule 26(b)(1) governs the scope of discovery. It permits a party to “obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense and proportional to the needs of the case . . .” The work-product doctrine codified in Rule 26(b)(3) and (b)(4) provides, with limited exception,³ that certain items generated “in anticipation of litigation” are protected from discovery.

Moreover, work product containing “mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party’s attorney or other representative concerning the litigation” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(B)) are rarely discoverable and enjoy “nearly absolute immunity.” Drummond Co., Inc. v. Conrad & Scherer, LLP, 885 F. 3d 1324, 1335 (11th Cir. 2018) (quoting Cox v. Adm’r U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F. 3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994)). Consistent with Rules 26 and 45, the parties agree Tarapani and Rossi may respond to the subpoenas and produce any nonprivileged communications and withhold or redact any privileged materials. (Doc. 43, p. 2; Doc. 46, p. 3). The dispute arises as to whether Tarapani and Rossi must produce a privilege log. In light of the overall circumstances surrounding these two subpoenas, rather than require Tarapani and Rossi to produce privilege logs of withheld or redacted materials, they may categorically withhold or redact privileged communications, and must provide a certification by both the subpoenaed party and Lake that none of the withheld or redacted documents were distributed to or reviewed by anyone other than Lake,

Lida Ee La ell.

NICHOLAS P. MIZEL

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

* Rule 45(e)(2)(A)(i)-(ii) provides: Information Withheld. A person withholding subpoenaed information under a claim that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial-preparation material must: (i) expressly make the claim; and (i¹) describe the nature of the withheld documents, communications, or tangible things in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable the parties to assess the claim.