AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
DR. STEVEN R. KOGANOVSKY, PENSKE TRUCK LEASING CO., L.P., AND MICHAEL ONEAL LITTLEJOHN, 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.
Aetna Insurance Company sought certiorari review of a trial court order compelling discovery. The appellate court quashed the order in part, finding the trial court failed to conduct in camera hearings to determine whether materials were protected by attorney-client privilege and work product privilege before ordering their production.
The trial court erred by failing to conduct in camera hearings to determine if materials were protected by attorney-client privilege or work product privilege before ordering their production. The court quashed the order in part and remanded for in camera review to determine which documents are privileged and whether the work product privilege applies, including analysis of need and inability to obtain substantial equivalent without undue hardship.
Aetna Insurance Company sought to compel discovery of certain materials from respondents Dr. Steven Koganovsky, Penske Truck Leasing Co., and Michael …
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.
Petitioner raises a number of grounds on which to grant a petition for certiorari, two of which require that we grant the relief requested, in part. The trial court failed to conduct an in camera hearing to determine if the materials being sought were protected by the attorney-client privilege. Accordingly, we quash its order and remand for in camera review to determine which documents are protected by the privilege. Old Stone Bank v. Farris, 647 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994), rev. denied, 659 So. 2d 271 (Fla.1995).
Similarly, because of the absence of any hearing upon the question of work product privilege we further remand to determine same; and if privileged, to make a determination of need and inability to obtain substantial equivalent without undue hardship. Alachua Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Zimmer USA Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); see also Healthtrust, Inc. v. Saunders, 651 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Boca Raton Hotel & Club v. Dunn, 563 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Assoc., Inc., 444 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
As to the balance of petitioner’s arguments, we deny relief.
GUNTHER, C.J., and GLICKSTEIN and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dismas Charities, Inc. v. Dabbs, 795 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…support of its denial of petitioner’s work product objections. This court has held that such findings are necessary to facilitate a meaningful review of the trial court’s reasons for denying work product objections. See Aetna Ins. Co. v. Koganovsky, 661 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Assoc., Inc., 444 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Waste Mgmt. of Fla. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 544 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Selected Risks Ins. Co. v. White, 447 So. 2d 455 (…
Authorities Cited
- Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Assocs., Inc., 444 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Alachua Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Healthtrust v. Saunders, 651 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Hanley v. Kajak, 647 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- OLD Stone Bank v. Farris, 647 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Turbeville v. Gerardi, 563 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Boca Raton Hotel & Club v. Cathleen Dunn, 563 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)