THE OHIO CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
ROGER E. JACKMAN AND BROWER-JACKMAN INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., 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.
The court held that the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in compelling out-of-state employees to appear for depositions in Florida, but did err in compelling document production without addressing privilege objections.
Ohio Casualty sought certiorari review of a trial court order compelling two of its out-of-state employees to appear for depositions in Florida and pr…
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 Depositions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The petitioner, Ohio Casualty Insurance Company (Ohio Casualty), seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order denying its motion for protective order. The order compels two of Ohio Casualty’s out-of-state employees to appear in Florida for their depositions and to bring with them specified documents. We uphold the order insofar as it requires Ohio Casualty to produce the deponents in Florida but quash that part directing the production of documents.
Based on this record, we cannot say that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in requiring Ohio Casualty to produce the nonresident individuals for deposition in Florida. The document production, however, is a different matter. Ohio Casualty’s timely motion for protective order asserted objections based on work product and attorney-client privilege.1 The trial court’s order failed to address the objections and thereby protect the production of the privileged documents. Hence, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in compelling production of all the documents requested.
Accordingly, we grant the petition in part and deny the petition in part. On remand, the trial court should address the cost issue previously raised by the parties.
FRANK, C.J., and DANAHY and ALTENBERND, JJ., concur. . The deposition notices, which were titled "duc-es tecum,” scheduled the depositions for fewer than thirty days from the date of service of the notices. Ohio Casualty should have been afforded thirty days to submit written objections to what was essentially a document request. See Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.350. We do not condone any practice that attempts to circumvent the time frames and procedures set forth in the rules.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Devereux Fla. Treatment Network, Inc. v. McINTOSH, 940 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…s objection on procedural grounds. Absent extraordinary circumstances not apparent here, a party should not be allowed to use a trial subpoena as a substitute for a timely request for production of documents. E.g., Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Jackman, 621 So. 2d 531 at n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (“We do not condone any practice that attempts to circumvent the time frames and procedures set forth in the rules [of civil procedure].”). While there is no requirement that every document sought for production at trial m…