RAYNA MYRON, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HER PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, SHARON BROCK AND HERBERT B. MYRON, AND SHARON BROCK AND HERBERT B. MYRON, INDIVIDUALLY, PETITIONERS,
v.
DOCTORS GENERAL, LTD., ETC., 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.
In a medical malpractice case, the trial court ordered plaintiffs to disclose the names and opinions of non-witness, work product experts retained by counsel. The appellate court granted certiorari and quashed the order, holding that such expert work product is protected from discovery absent exceptional circumstances.
Defendants are not entitled to discovery of the identity and opinions of specially retained non-witness work product experts unless they demonstrate exceptional circumstances showing it is impracticable to obtain the same facts or opinions by other means.
[1] Discovery rules do not permit the disclosure of the identity or opinions of non-witness, work product experts absent a showing of exceptional circumstances.
[2] Exceptional circumstances justifying discovery of non-witness, work product experts' opinions exist when it is impracticable to obtain the same facts or opinions by other…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“Respondents are not entitled to discovery of such information absent a showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the respondents to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.”
States the core holding protecting work product experts from discovery discovery
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Donald Giulianti, a defendant in a medical malpractice suit, served contention interrogatories on the plaintiffs requesting detailed information a…
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 Expert Witness Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
We have for review by petition for writ of certiorari an order of the trial court directing petitioners to disclose the names and opinions of non-witness, work product experts under penalty of having their pleadings stricken for failure to comply.
One of the defendants in this medical malpractice suit, Dr. Donald Giulianti, propounded “contention interrogatories” to the petitioners on March 27, 1990. Interrogatory No. 2 stated:
[Separately and in detail each specific act or omission which you allege constitutes negligence by this defendant, giving for each the date and time of each act or omission and what you contend should or should not have been done according to the standard of care, you contend was breached.
Dr. Giulianti also requested that the plaintiffs “state the name and address of ‘every person’ who has knowledge of the matters contended in your answer to No. 2 above.” On April 26, 1990, petitioners filed objections to the above-described interrogatories. When these objections were overruled and petitioners did not answer interrogatories 2 and 3, respondents filed a motion for sanctions. On July 3, 1990, petitioners filed a certificate of compliance regarding the subject interrogatories. They also filed a response to the interrogatories which indicated that the petitioners did not personally know the names of any of the experts involved.
A hearing was held on the respondents’ motion for sanctions on September 25, 1990, which resulted in the order which is the subject of this petition for writ of certiorari. That order granted the motion for sanctions and directed the following:
[Pjlaintiff shall provide answers as to the date and time of each act or omission which she contends violates the standard of care, after considering all opinions of those who have been consulted in that regard. She shall disclose the names of those with knowledge and shall state with particularity any persons whose opinions she considers privileged.
We grant the writ of certiorari and quash so much of the order under review as requires answers which divulge the identity and/or opinion of any specially retained non-witness, work product experts. Respondents are not entitled to discovery of such information absent a showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the respondents to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(4)(B) (1989). See also: Ager v. Jane C. Stor-mont Hospital & Training School for Nurses, 622 F. 2d 496 (10th Cir.1980); Gilmor Trading Corp. v. Lind Electric, Inc., 555 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Ruiz v. Brea, 489 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (opinion on rehearing).
CERTIORARI GRANTED.
HERSEY, C.J., and LETTS, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State v. Mark Marks, P.A., 698 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1997)…ngs by a trial court. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b). Specifically, the identities and/or opinions of a non-witness work product expert are not discoverable absent a showing of exceptional circumstances under rule 1.280(b)(4)(B). Myron v. Doctors Gen., Ltd., 573 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Medical reports based on an examination requested by a party do not need to be delivered absent a request for such. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.360(b); Smiles v. Young, 271 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 279 So. 2d 305 (Fla.1973). I…
-
Glenice Barfuss v. Diversicare Corp. OF Am., 656 So. 2d 486 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…aside. American Southern Co. v. Tinter, Inc., 565 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Even though Chapter 766 may be applicable to some of the actions complained of by Barfuss2, the trial court’s order is improper. As in Myron v. Doctors General, Ltd., 573 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), the [*488] court's action has the effect, at the very least, of requiring Barfuss to divulge the identity of specially retained non-witnesses or work product experts. Such a requirement without the requisite showing of hardship…
-
State v. Mark Marks, P.A., 654 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…gs by a trial court. Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.280(b). Specifically, the identities and/or opinions of a non-witness work product expert are not discoverable absent a showing of exceptional circumstances under rule 1.280(b)(4)(B). Myron v. Doctors Gen., Ltd., 573 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Medical reports based on an examination requested by a party do not need to be delivered absent a request for such. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.360(b); Smiles v. Young, 271 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 279 So. 2d 305 (Fla.1973). I…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ager v. Jane C. Stormont Hosp. & Training Sch. FOR Nurses, 622 F.2d 496 (10th Cir. 1980)
- Gilmor Trading Corp. v. Lind Elec., Inc., 555 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Ruiz v. Cesar Brea, M.D., 489 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)