GELCO CORPORATION, EUGENE THOMAS FLOOD, AND CARNRICK LABORATORIES, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
ESCAMBIA COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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 granted certiorari to quash an order compelling production of work product materials but denied certiorari regarding a second deposition, finding no abuse of discretion in the latter.
Work product protection shields a diagram/report from discovery unless the requesting party demonstrates need and inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means, but a trial court does not abuse its discretion in ordering a second deposition.
[1] Work product protection under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(3) shields attorney work product from discovery unless the requesting party demonstrates it needs t…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners Gelco Corporation, Eugene Thomas Flood, and Carnrick Laboratories sought to prevent Escambia County from obtaining a diagram/report prepar…
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 Attorney Work Product cases and more on FLexlaw
ERVIN, Judge.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and that portion of the trial court’s order compelling production of the diagram/report prepared by petitioner Flood is quashed, because the documents are protected work product and there was no finding that respondent Escambia County demonstrated that it needed the materials for preparation of its case and was unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. See Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(3); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 446 So. 2d 100 (Fla.1984); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 271 So. 2d 146 (Fla.1972). And see Alachua Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Scott, 481 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Hospital Corp. of Am. v. Dixon, 330 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 341 So. 2d 291 (Fla.1976).
The petition is denied, however, as to that portion of the order requiring petitioner Flood to submit to a second deposition, because we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision and, hence, no departure from the essential requirements of law.
The petition is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Trowell v. State, 706 So. 2d 332 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…to the judgment. We cannot agree. The court’s decision in Thomas is inconsistent with a substantial body of case law from this court and other district courts of appeal. See, e.g., Moore v. State, 661 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Kiser v. State, 649 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Owens v. State, 643 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Clayton v. State, 635 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Hudson v. State, 596 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Short v. State, 596 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Courson v. State,…1 / 2
-
Williams v. State, 685 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)…eived irregularities at sentencing, and, as the substance of the motion now under review concerns the voluntariness of the plea, the disparate nature of these claims allows this one to be heard despite the doctrine of successiveness. Kiser v. State, 649 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Facially sufficient allegations that prescriptive medication interfered with Mr. Williams’ ability to understand the nature and consequences of his plea require us to reverse the order of the trial court. Pursuant to an agreeme…
-
Reid v. State, 724 So. 2d 127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)…of the previous motions as having been filed under rule 3.850, even though appellant filed them under rule 3.800, the present motion should not be considered successive. See Williams v. State, 685 So. 2d 1317 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), and Kiser v. State, 649 So. 2d 333 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. JOANOS and KAHN, JJ., concur. DAVIS, J., concurs in result.…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Varsenig Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Alachua Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Adela Davis v. Jewish Vocational Rehabilitation Workshop, 271 So. 2d 146 (Fla. 1972)
- Sears v. Scott, 481 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- State Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Whitman, 481 So. 2d 968 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- W-G Dev. Corp. v. Starnes, 330 So. 2d 737 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)