ANDRES CARRERA AND CAST MAR, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
ROSA CASAS, JORGE LUIS CASAS, AND LUIS CASAS, 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.
Defendants in a negligence action challenged a discovery order compelling production of documents relating to newly-disclosed independent medical examiners. The court held that discovery requests directed at the parties and their attorneys, rather than the experts themselves, exceeded the limited scope of permissible expert discovery under Florida Rule 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii) and Elkins v. Syken.
The discovery requests exceed the limited scope of expert discovery permitted by rule 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii) and Elkins v. Syken because they are directed at the parties and their attorneys rather than at the expert witnesses themselves and do not fall within the eight criteria established for seeking financial information from opposing medical experts.
[1] Discovery requests seeking financial information from opposing counsel regarding expert witnesses are generally outside the scope of permissible discovery aimed at uncove…
[2] Discovery concerning an opponent's expert witness is limited to determining the witness's probability of bias.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“All eight of the criteria to be followed in seeking financial information from opposing medical experts, listed in Elkins and adopted by the supreme court in the commentary to rule 1.280, refer to matters directed to that expert witness, not to the parties or their attorneys.”
Establishes that discovery criteria are limited to the expert witness, not parties or their counsel
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendants obtained permission to conduct three independent medical examinations of the plaintiff beyond the discovery cut-off date. Plaintiffs then s…
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 Expert Witness Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
JORGENSON, Judge.
Andres Carrera and Cast Mar, Inc. are defendants in a negligence action arising from an automobile accident; they seek review of an order compelling production of certain documents.1 For the reasons that follow, we grant the petition and quash the order under review.
The defendants, over plaintiffs’ objection, obtained permission from the trial court to conduct three Independent Medical Examinations of the plaintiff beyond the discovery cut-off date. Casas then sought discovery relating to the newly disclosed experts who would be conducting the IMEs. The requests for production asked the defendants, through their attorneys, to provide various documents relating to other cases in which the newly-listed experts had been “involved.”
Defendants filed objections on multiple grounds, including that the requests were overbroad, asked for work product, and were burdensome and harassing. Defendants also objected on the grounds that they did not keep files in ways that would allow them to compile the information requested, and that compiling the information would require them to review all of their open files and all of their files that were in storage.
Plaintiffs also propounded interrogatories to defendants and their attorneys that sought additional information about the experts and the income that the experts derived from serving as expert witnesses.
Defendants objected to these interrogatories as outside the scope of rule 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii), and sought a protective order from the court. The court denied the motion for a protective order, and in doing so, departed from the essential requirements of law. Both rule 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii) and Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1996), from which the rule was derived,2 allow limited discovery from, an opponent’s expert witness in order to determine that witness’ probability of bias. All eight of the criteria to be followed in seeking financial information from opposing medical experts, listed in El-kins and adopted by the supreme court in the commentary to rule 1.280, refer to matters directed to that expert witness, not to the parties or their attorneys. The information sought by the plaintiffs in this case does not fall within the limited parameters set forth in Elkins, and is directed to the parties, rather than the experts themselves.
Petition for certiorari granted; order quashed; cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
. Certiorari is the proper method by which to seek review of discovery orders. Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli, 621 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
. “Accordingly, we approve the opinion of the district court in its entirety. We also conclude that the district court's criteria should he included as commentary to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280." Elkins, 672 So. 2d 517, 522.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1999)…PARIENTE, J. We have for review Allstate Insurance Co. v. Boecher, 705 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), in which the Fourth District certified conflict with Carrera v. Casas, 695 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), regard [*994] ing whether this Court’s decision in Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1996), or Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b) (4) (A) (iii) prevents discovery requests from being propounded directly to a party regard…
-
Sardinas v. Claridania Lagares, 805 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…DCA 1998)(quashing a discovery order compelling the insurance carrier to produce an affidavit setting forth the amount paid to its expert physician for medical exams and treatment in other cases for the past three years). See also Carrera v. Casas, 695 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), disapproved on other. grounds, Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993 (Fla.1999); Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli, 621 So. 2d 546, 547 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). 1 In Vega v. CSCS International, N.V., 795 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 200…
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 705 So. 2d 106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996)
- Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli, 621 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)