MEASE HOSPITAL, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE, RESPONDENT

Fla. 2d DCA | 1997-01-24
No. 96-03573
PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and QUINCE, JJ., concur.
687 So. 2d 883 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1997)

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.


Holding

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in compelling responses to most discovery requests, but did err in compelling a response to one improperly phrased request.


Facts & Procedural History

Petitioner Mease Hospital, Inc. sought review of a trial court order compelling it to respond to discovery requests in a medical negligence action. Me…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Mease Hospital, Inc., seeks review of the trial court order granting respondent, Christopher Lawrence’s, motion to compel. The court requires Mease, a defendant in the underlying medical negligence action, to respond to several statements contained in a request for admissions filed by the respondent on May 8, 1996. Mease asserts that the court has abused its discretion because the information sought is protected from disclosure and discovery by the provisions of sections 395.0191, 395.0193 and 766.101, Florida Statutes (1995), and the holding in Cruger v. Love, 599 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1992).

The respondent concedes that statement fifty-four in the request is improperly phrased and requests non-diseoverable information. However, we hold that the trial court has not abused its discretion in requiring responses to statements eleven through eighteen to the extent the statements can be addressed through non-privileged “information, documents, or records otherwise available from original sources.” See §§ 395.0191(8), 395.0193(7) and 766.101(5).

The petition is granted in part. That portion of the trial court’s order which requires Mease to respond to statement fifty-four is quashed. In all other respects the petition is denied.

PARKER, A.C.J., and ALTENBERND and QUINCE, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw