STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
GIZELA VON HOHENBERG AND MARIO SORRENTINO, HER HUSBAND, 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.
State Farm challenged a trial court's blanket discovery order requiring it to produce its entire claim file without asserting work product or attorney-client privileges. The Third District Court of Appeal granted the petition, holding that the discovery order was overbroad and that individual items in the file may be protected from discovery even if relevant to the case.
The court held that the trial court's blanket discovery order constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law and was overbroad. Individual items in the claim file may be protected by work product immunity or attorney-client privilege, and the party seeking discovery must make the required showing under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b) to overcome work product objections.
[1] A blanket discovery order that compels the production of all files, documents, and communications without regard to potential privilege constitutes a departure from the e…
[2] The scope of discovery is limited by work product immunity and attorney-client privilege.
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“the scope of the instant order is so broad that it constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law”
Establishes the standard for evaluating whether a discovery order is legally sound; an overbroad blanket order violates this standard.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA condominium resident sued her association after being assaulted at her condominium. State Farm, the association's insurer, investigated the claim an…
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 Work Product Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In the underlying action upon which this petition is based, petitioner sued her condominium association after being assaulted at her condominium. Subsequently, the insurance company for the condominium association, State Farm, undertook an investigation of the woman’s claim, including sur veillance of the woman. The woman then sued State Farm for invasion of privacy, which claim was thereafter severed from her personal injury action. Upon her subsequent motion to compel the discovery of information from both the condominium association and the insurer, the trial judge' ruled that after the personal injury trial, State Farm would have to produce its claim file, and could not assert any work product or attorney-client privileges, whatsoever, regarding its files, documents, or communications. The court held it would review only assertions of attorney-client privilege on the part of the condominium association attorney.
We grant the petition and hold that the scope of the instant order is so broad that it constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law. See General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp. v. Golding, 436 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Whether all or a portion of the information sought to be discovered is protected by work product immunity, Airocar, Inc. v. Goldman, 474 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), or by attorney-client privilege remains in question. Further, if certain information is protected by work product immunity but not attorney-client privilege, it is yet to be demonstrated whether the appropriate showing under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b), can be made. See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. v. Kelly, 533 So. 2d 787, 788-89 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988).
Even if the material sought through discovery is relevant to the subject matter of the case, and admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, particular items of information sought to be discovered may be privileged and beyond permissible discovery. Bast Colonial Refuse Service, Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). Furthermore, the burden is on the party who seeks to overcome a work product objection to show a need for the documents sought and demonstrate that they are unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the equivalent by any other means. Ruhland v. Gibeault, 495 So. 2d 1243, 1244 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986). Clearly, the instant order was overbroad.
Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the trial court’s blanket discovery order, without prejudice to the right of respondents to make the showing required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DeBARTOLO-Aventura, Inc. v. Hernandez, 638 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…t might yield additional information about the incident is not enough, without more, to show ‘undue hardship.’” Mt. Sinai Medical Center v. Schulte, 546 So. 2d 37, 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). See generally State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Von Hohenberg, 595 So. 2d 303, 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Dade County Public Health Trust v. Zaidman, 447 So. 2d 282, 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 502.9 (1993 ed.). Documents protected by the work product immunity must not be lightly invaded, but…
-
Krypton Broad. OF Jacksonville, Inc. v. Mgm-Pathe Commc'ns Co., 629 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…er, even if material sought is relevant to the subject matter of a case and admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, such material may not be discovered if privileged. State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v. Von Hohenberg, 595 So. 2d 303 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The instant requests for exhaustive biographical information (e.g., lengthy employment and residence histories, social security numbers, dates and places of birth) on persons not shown to have any discernible relationship to the…
-
Millard Mall Servs., Inc. v. Bolda, 155 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…ion about the incident is not enough, without more, to show ‘undue hardship.’” Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Schulte, 546 So. 2d 37, 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); see generally DeBartolo-Aventura, 638 So. 2d at 989-90; State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Von Hohenberg, 595 So. 2d 303, 304 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Dade Cnty. Pub. Health Trust v. Zaidman, 447 So. 2d 282, 283 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Charles W. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 502.9 (2010 ed.). Defendants have met their burden, while plaintiff has not demonstrated that she is u…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- E. Colonial Refuse Serv., Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 533 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Airocar, Inc. v. Goldman, 474 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Ruhland v. Gibeault, 495 So. 2d 1243 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Gen. Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corp., Ltd. v. Golding, 436 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)