ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
BRENT M. HUBER, INC., MCDONALD AND COMPANY INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., KEVIN MCDONALD,
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.
Allstate Insurance Company sought certiorari review of an order denying its motion for a protective order to prevent the deposition of its Corporate Litigation Counsel. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that while courts must exercise care before allowing attorney depositions, a party seeking a protective order cannot rely on general blanket privilege claims but must instead object to specific questions during the deposition.
The court held that the trial court did not depart from essential requirements of law in denying the protective order. While courts must exercise great care before permitting attorney depositions, protective orders totally prohibiting depositions should rarely be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. A party cannot obtain relief based on general blanket privilege claims; instead, objections must be made to specific questions during the deposition.
[1] A protective order totally prohibiting a deposition should rarely be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.
[2] Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(a) permits the deposition of any person.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Florida courts have disapproved the entry of protective orders prohibiting the taking of depositions generally.”
Establishes the governing principle that blanket protective orders prohibiting depositions are disfavored absent extraordinary circumstances
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllstate sought an emergency motion for a protective order to prevent Brent M. Huber from deposing Allstate's Corporate Litigation Counsel. The trial …
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.
HARRIS, J.
Petitioner, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”), seeks certiorari review of an order denying its emergency motion for protective order as to Respondent, Brent M. Huber’s, attempt to depose Allstate’s Corporate Litigation Counsel. Huber argues that Allstate failed to establish a departure from the essential requirements of the law because the order under review simply permitted the deposition to occur, but did not rule on any attorneyclient privilege objections.
We agree. The rules of civil procedure do not prohibit the deposition of an attorney simply because he or she is an attorney, and protective orders totally prohibiting a deposition should rarely be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. See Bush v. Schiavo, 866 So. 2d 136, 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“Florida courts have disapproved the entry of protective orders prohibiting the taking of depositions generally.”).
In City of Oldsmar v. Kimmins Contracting Corp., 805 So. 2d 1091, 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), the court noted that “Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(a) permits the taking of a deposition of ‘any person.’” Courts must “exercise great care before permitting the deposition of an attorney.” Stull v. Suntrust Bank, Case No. 09-82302-CIV-DIMITROULEAS/SELTZER, 2011 WL 13224911, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 20, 2011) (quoting W. Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm Beach Cnty., 132 F.R.D. 301, 302 (S.D. Fla. 1990)).
The mere request for the deposition of a party’s attorney can create good cause for the party opposing the deposition to seek a protective order pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c).
However, when seeking relief, a party cannot make a general, blanket claim of privilege. Payne v. Seminole Elec. Coop., Inc., Case No. 3:19-cv-1173-TJC-MCR, 2021 WL 3017392, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 2, 2021). That is all Allstate has done here.
Accordingly, we deny Allstate’s request that we quash the order denying its motion for protective order. During the deposition, Allstate should be permitted to make objections to specific questions, if necessary, and when the trial court reviews those questions and objections, it should make specific findings to allow for meaningful appellate review. See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Knapp, 234 So. 3d 843, 849–50 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
PETITION DENIED.
EDWARDS, C.J., and SOUD, J., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Knapp, 234 So. 3d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)