ASPLUNDH TREE EXPERT CO., PETITIONER,
v.
ALAN DOUGLAS BARNES AND FOREMOST FABRICATIONS, 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.
Asplundh Tree Expert Co. sought certiorari review of an order compelling its attorney to answer questions about a wood chipper injury. The court held that the attorney-client privilege protected the communications at issue, including communications shared with a codefendant under the common interest exception, and therefore quashed the discovery order.
The court held that the substantive questions posed to Asplundh's attorney were protected by the attorney-client privilege under Florida Statute § 90.502(2), and that the communications between Asplundh's attorney and the codefendant's president were also protected under the common interest exception. The codefendant's letter referencing 'our attorney's' advice did not constitute a waiver because the only evidence showed the codefendant relied on a different attorney's advice.
[1] Communications between an attorney and client are protected by the attorney-client privilege.
[2] Communications between parties with a common interest are privileged under an exception to the doctrine of waiver of privilege.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 substantive areas of inquiry are protected by the attorney client privilege. § 90.502(2), Fla. Stat. (1995)”
Establishes the foundational basis for the privilege protection applied to the disputed questions.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAsplundh Tree Expert Co. was a defendant in a personal injury case involving a wood chipper. During discovery, the trial court ordered one of Asplundh…
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 Confidentiality Of Communications cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Asplundh Tree Expert Co., a defendant in the court below, seeks certiorari review of an order compelling one of its attorneys to answer certain questions pertaining to a wood chipper which injured the plaintiff. The substantive areas of inquiry are protected by the attorney client privilege. § 90.502(2), Fla. Stat. (1995); United Servs. Auto Ass’n v. Crews, 614 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
The communications between Asplundh’s attorney and the president of the codefendant, the company that sold the wood chipper, are also privileged as part of the common interests exception to the doctrine of waiver of privilege. See Rodan v. Doyle, 614 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Visual Scene, Inc. v. Pilkington Brothers, PLC., 508 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
The letter from the codefendant to the customer referencing the advice of “our attorney’s” (sic) did not amount to a waiver of the confidentiality of any communications with Asplundh’s attorney that may have prompted her to give advice. See Prieto v. Union American Ins. Co., 673 So. 2d 521, 522-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996).
The only record evidence is that the eodefendant relied on the advice of an attorney other than Asplundh’s to make the decision mentioned in the letter. Because the privilege applies to the proposed substantive questions, the background questions are not discoverable.
Having found that the privilege applies, we do not reach the issue of the procedural deficiencies in the order compelling the out-of-state attorney to give testimony.
The petition for certiorari is granted and the order compelling the deposition of attorney Hamm is quashed.
GUNTHER, C.J., and STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
City OF Oldsmar v. Kimmins Contracting Corp., 805 So. 2d 1091 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)…tive order, Medina v. Yoder Auto Sales, Inc., 743 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), and when the information sought is wholly protected by the attorney-client privilege, courts will properly issue a protective order. Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Barnes, 689 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). We agree with the City that the law imposes a heavy burden on a party seeking to obtain work product, see Intercontinental Props., Inc. v. Samy, 685 So. 2d 1035 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), and requires strict adherence to maintaining t…
-
Brinkmann v. Petro Welt Trading, 324 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…rotection afforded by the privilege." AG Beaumont 1, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 160 So. 3d 510, 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015); see also Barnett Banks Tr. Co., N.A. v. Compson, 629 So. 2d 849, 851 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Barnes, 689 So. 2d 1200, 1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Visual Scene, Inc. v. Pilkington Brothers, PLC, 508 So. 2d 437, 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).3 Unfortunately, because the trial court's order contains no findings or analysis related to the privilege and work product objections,…
Authorities Cited
- Visual Scene, Inc. v. Pilkington Bros., 508 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
- United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Crews, 614 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Prieto v. Union Am. Ins. Co., 673 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Wolf Falkenberg and Ann McBride v. Cole, 614 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)