OLD HOLDINGS, LTD., LHO TRUST, JOHN OHL, TOBIN & TOBIN, EUGENE J. CHIARELLI, AND ROBERT OHL, PETITIONERS,
v.
TAPLIN, HOWARD, SHAW & MILLER, P.A., 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.
Petitioners sought certiorari review of an order compelling production of attorney billing statements and California income tax returns. The court held that detailed billing statements may be protected by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine and require in camera review, but that California tax returns are discoverable in Florida proceedings.
Detailed billing statements that may reveal attorney mental impressions and opinions are protected by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine, requiring in camera review before disclosure. However, California income tax returns are discoverable in Florida proceedings, as tax returns are generally discoverable and California privilege law is merely a factor for the trial court to consider in the exercise of its discovery discretion.
[1] Attorney billing statements may be protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine when they contain detailed descriptions of serv…
[2] A trial court must conduct an in camera review of documents claimed to be protected by attorney-client or work product privileges before ordering their disclosure.
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“where the billing statements may include detailed descriptions of the nature of the services rendered and could therefore reveal the mental impressions and opinions of the attorneys to opposing counsel, the billing statements may be protected from discovery by both the attorney client privilege and the work product doctrine”
Establishes the core holding that detailed billing statements are protectable under two doctrines based on their potential to reveal attorney thinking
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners sought to withhold attorney billing statements and time records from Tobin & Tobin, Inc., as well as California income tax returns for the…
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 In Camera Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners seek certiorari review of the trial court’s interlocutory order compelling production of certain attorney’s billing statements claimed to be protected by the attorney client and work product privileges, and certain income tax returns claimed to be privileged under California law.
We grant certiorari, finding that under the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, where the billing statements may include detailed descriptions of the nature of the services rendered and could therefore reveal the mental impressions and opinions of the attorneys to opposing counsel, the billing statements may be protected from discovery by both the attorney client privilege and the work product doctrine. Under these circumstances the petitioners are entitled to an in camera review of the documents by the trial court prior to disclosure. See Corry v. Meggs, 498 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986), rev. denied, 506 So. 2d 1042 (Fla.1987); State v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Skorman v. Hovnanian of Florida, Inc., 382 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Sporck v. Peil, 759 F. 2d 312 (3d Cir.) cert. denied, 474 U.S. 903, 106 S.Ct. 232, 88 L.Ed.2d 230 (1985). Respondents’ contention that the attorney client privilege was waived because it was not asserted until raised in a motion for rehearing is without merit. See Gross v. Security Trust Co., 462 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We note that petitioners have agreed to provide “sanitized” copies of these materials to respondents. There is no reason why the trial court cannot order the immediate furnishing of these copies pending its resolution of the claim of privilege as to the original documents.
We agree that petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in compelling production of the California income tax returns. Tax returns are discoverable in Florida, see Bystrom v. Whitman, 488 So. 2d 520 (Fla.1986), and Frank Medina Trading Co. v. Blanco, 553 So. 2d 285 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989), and since pretrial discovery is a matter resting largely within the discretion of the trial court, we believe the existence of a privilege under California law is simply a factor the trial court should consider. See Strauss v. Sillin, 393 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); 10 Fla.Jur.2d Conflict of Laws § 4, § 47, § 50 (1979). See also and compare Wilson v. Rodriquez, 547 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Accordingly, the trial court’s May 8, 1991, order is quashed insofar as it compels production of copies of bills for services rendered and time records of Tobin & To-bin, Inc., for the LHO Trust, Robert Ohl, Brian Ohl, and Old Holdings, Inc. The order is approved, however, insofar as it compels production of the California income tax returns of the LHO Trust for the years 1989 and thereafter. DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Finol v. Finol, 869 So. 2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…If this billing information contained descriptions of services rendered which would reveal the mental impressions and opinions of counsel, that information should be redacted as privileged, Old Holdings, Ltd. v. Taplin, Howard, Shaw & Miller, P.A., 584 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); however, the remaining information is not privileged and therefore discoverable. This court has recently allowed discovery of defense counsel’s billing records because they were relevant to plaintiffs claim for prevailing part…
-
Gary C. Courville, M.D. v. Promedco OF Sw. Fla., Inc., 743 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…should conduct an in camera review of all communications which are identified by the physicians as privi [*43] leged and outside the scope of the waiver as found by the court on remand. See Old Holdings, Ltd. v. Taplin, Howard, Shaw & Miller, P.A., 584 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). Certiorari granted; trial court order quashed; and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. THREADGILL, A.C.J., and STRINGER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. . The scope of waiver advocated by the physicians is narrower th…
-
Alliant Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Riemer Ins. Grp., 22 So. 3d 779 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)…sing party claims are protected by attorney-client privilege, the party claiming the privilege is entitled to an in camera review of the documents by the trial court prior to disclosure. See Old Holdings, Ltd. v. Taplin, Howard, Shaw & Miller, P.A., 584 So. 2d 1128, 1128-29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (finding that where documents may be protected by both the attorney-client privilege and the work-produet doctrine, the petitioners are entitled to an in camera review of the documents by the trial court prior to disclos…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- State v. Rabin, 495 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Sporck v. Peil, 759 F.2d 312 (3d Cir. 1985)
- Bystrom v. S.F. Whitman, 488 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1986)
- Matrix Enters., Inc. v. Millington Tel. Co., Inc., 474 U.S. 903 (U.S. 1985)
- Argus Chem. Corp. v. Fibre Glass-Evercoat Co., Inc., 474 U.S. 903 (U.S. 1985)
- Skorman v. Hovnanian OF Fla., Inc., 382 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Gross v. Sec. Tr. Co., 462 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Corry v. Meggs, 498 So. 2d 508 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Strauss v. Sillin, 393 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Wilson v. Mario E. Rodriquez, M.D., 547 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)