THE HASKELL COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION, ETC., ET AL., 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 Haskell Company sought certiorari review of an order requiring disclosure of a corporate employee's discussion with counsel during a deposition recess. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal held that attorney-client privilege protects such communications and quashed the trial court's order compelling disclosure.
Communications between an attorney and client during a deposition recess are protected by attorney-client privilege under Florida law. While the fact of consultation may be brought out, the substance of the communication is generally protected, and there is no recognized exception to the privilege for such communications.
[1] An order compelling disclosure of privileged communications is reviewable by certiorari.
[2] The attorney-client privilege applies to confidential communications between a lawyer and client made in the rendition of legal services that are not intended to be discl…
Previewing 2 of 6 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 attorney-client privilege in Florida as codified by statute applies to the contents of confidential communications between a lawyer and a client made in the rendition of legal services which are not intended to be disclosed to third persons.”
Establishes the scope of attorney-client privilege under Florida law
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a deposition, a corporate employee of The Haskell Company discussed his testimony with counsel during a recess. The opposing party moved to reo…
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 Confidential Communications cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
Petitioner, The Haskell Company, seeks certiorari review of an order reopening the deposition of one of its corporate employees. The deponent admitted that during a recess he discussed his testimony with counsel. The trial court granted respondents’ motion to reopen the deposition, so that respondents could examine the deponent regarding his discussion with counsel. The court found that this discussion was not protected by the attorney-client privilege.
An order compelling disclosure of privileged communications is reviewable by certiorari. See Shell Oil Co. v. Par Four Partnership, 638 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The attorney-client privilege in Florida as codified by statute applies to the contents of confidential communications between a lawyer and a client made in the rendition of legal services which are not intended to be disclosed to third persons. See §§ 90.502(1) and (2), Fla. Stat. (1995). These confidential communications are not discoverable unless one of the statutory exceptions to the privilege is applicable. See § 90.502(4), Fla. Stat. (1995). When a privilege is facially apparent, the burden is on the party seeking disclosure to show that the privilege does not apply. See Shell Oil Co. v. Par Four Partnership, supra.
There is no recognized exception to the privilege for a communication between an attorney and client which occurs during a break in deposition. If a deponent changes his testimony after consulting with his attorney, the fact of the consultation may be brought out, but the substance of the communication generally is protected. See Feltner v. Internationale Nederlanden Bank, 622 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We recognize that the coaching of witnesses during depositions may obstruct the fact-finding purpose of discovery. We also recognize a trial court’s authority to supervise the conduct of parties at depositions, but that authority may not encroach upon the attorney-client privilege. We quash the trial court’s order, which departs from the essential requirements of law.
PETITION GRANTED; ORDER QUASHED.
PETERSON, C.J., and ANTOON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
First Union Nat'l Bank v. Turney, 824 So. 2d 172 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…not.” Shell Oil Co. v. Par Four P’ship, 638 So. 2d 1050, 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). See Robichaud v. Kennedy, 711 So. 2d 186, 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Cone v. Culverhouse, 687 So. 2d 888, 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); The Haskell Co. v. Georgia Pac. Corp., 684 So. 2d 297, 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). These predicate factual questions fall to the trial court for decision under a preponderance of the evidence standard.10 See § 90.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1999) (“[T]he court shall determine preliminary questions concerning ...…
-
Quarles & Brady, LLP v. Mireya Prio Birdsall and William Birdsall, 802 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…reasonably necessary for the transmission of the communication.” Section 90.502(4) states five exceptions to the privilege. Privileged communications are not discoverable unless one of the statutory exceptions applies. Haskell Co. v. Ga. Pac. Corp., 684 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). None of the exceptions were cited by the Birdsalls in their motion to compel. The motion stated only that Doyle is an important witness in the case. But undue hardship is not an exception, Nat’l Sec. Fire & Cas. Co. v. Dunn, 70…
-
E. AIR Lines, Inc. v. United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc., 716 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)…al. None of those five circumstances is present in this case. Confidential communications between a lawyer and client “are not discoverable unless one of the statutory exceptions to the privilege is applicable.” Haskell Co. v. Georgia Pacific Corp., 684 So. 2d 297, 298 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (emphasis added). Under Florida law, the cooperation clause does not eviscerate the attorney-client privilege. Instead, the cooperation requirement “arises to prevent fraud and collusion in proceedings to determine liabilit…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Shell OIL Co. v. PAR Four P'ship, 638 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Feltner v. Internationale Nederlanden Bank, N.V., 622 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)