ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM/SUNBELT, INC., ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
BARBARA LAKE, 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.
Florida appellate court granted certiorari and quashed a discovery order compelling production of attorney work product (witness statements), holding that the opposing party failed to demonstrate inability to obtain the substantial equivalent through depositions.
Work product privilege protects attorney-obtained witness statements absent a showing that the discovering party cannot obtain the substantial equivalent by other means, and mere passage of time affecting witness memory does not overcome this privilege.
[1] Work product privilege protects statements obtained by counsel in preparation for trial unless the discovering party demonstrates inability to obtain the substantial equi…
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 intelligenceAdventist Health System's attorneys obtained statements from nurses in April 1983 after suit was filed, and disclosed the witnesses' names to responde…
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
GOSHORN, Judge.
Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. d/b/a Florida Hospital (petitioner) seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order compelling it to furnish statements taken by it from its nurses after suit was filed. We have jurisdiction. Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(2)(A). Because the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by compelling the production of the petitioner’s work product, we grant the petition, quash the discovery order and remand for further proceedings.
Petitioner’s work product obtained in preparation for trial is privileged absent a showing that the party seeking discovery “is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(3). The record shows that the statements sought to be discovered were taken by attorneys for petitioner in April of 1983 and the names of the witnesses disclosed to respondents four months later. Therefore respondents could have obtained the “substantial equivalent” of the statements by also taking depositions of these witnesses. Indeed, they did depose several of the witnesses. The fact that the witnesses’ memories may now be failing due to the long period between the date of the incident and the upcoming retrial fails to provide a sufficient ground to overcome petitioner’s work product privilege.
Petition GRANTED; writ ISSUED; order QUASHED; REMANDED for further proceedings.
COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Erwin Zaban v. McCOMBS, 568 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…ent of the investigator’s materials when respondent has already received that equivalent. National Linen’s work product privilege has not been overcome and discovery should not be permitted. See generally Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc. v. Lake, 556 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). The order granting discovery is quashed and the cause is remanded with directions that the trial court grant petitioners’ motion for a protective order. NIMMONS and ALLEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Racetrac Petroleum, Inc. v. Juliet Green Cooper and OPW Fueling, 69 So. 3d 1077 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…s showing is entirely conjectural. See Zaban v. McCombs, 568 So. 2d 87, 89 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (where witness could recall facts concerning accident, improper to order production of witness’s statements); Adventist Health Sys./Sunbelt, Inc. v. Lake, 556 So. 2d 819, 819 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (production of work product to refresh recollection of witness erroneous where respondents could have obtained substantial equivalent of witness’s statements). Accordingly, we quash the order under review to the extent that…