RICHARD MULHOLLAND AND ASSOCIATES, ATTORNEYS AT LAW; RICHARD MULHOLLAND, INDIVIDUALLY, AND JOHN F. MCCUE, PETITIONERS,
v.
CAROL POLVERARI, RESPONDENT
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 court held that an order compelling production of attorney representation agreements with other clients was an abuse of discretion.
Petitioners, attorneys, were sued by a former client for professional negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The client sought p…
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 Professional Negligence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners seek review of an order denying their motion for protective order which sought to prevent production of certain documents. For the following reasons, we grant the petition and quash the order under review.
In the underlying cause of action, respondent, Carol Polverari, sued petitioners, whom she had retained to represent her in pursuing a claim for personal injuries, for professional negligence based on allowing the statute of limitations to run on her workers’ compensation claim and for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on their conduct toward her. Polverari requested production of every “authority to represent” agreement between every client and petitioners executed from 1989 through 1994. The trial court ordered petitioners to produce all of the documents requested, but allowed them to redact the clients’ names.
A protective order should be granted when the pleadings indicate that the documents requested are not related to any pending claim or defense and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Walter v. Page, 638 So. 2d 1030, 1031 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); see Krypton Broadcasting of Jacksonville, Inc. v. MGM-Pathe Communications Co., 629 So. 2d 852, 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (noting that it is axiomatic that information sought in discovery must relate to the issues involved in the litigation, as framed in all pleadings). The representation agreements between petitioners and their other clients are not related to any pending claim or defense, nor was the information shown to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for certiorari, quash the order under review, and remand this cause for further proceedings consistent herewith.
PATTERSON, A.C.J., and QUINCE and WHATLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…the parties’ pleadings. Diaz-Verson v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 54 So.Bd 1007, 1011 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); Capeo Props., LLC v. Monterey Gardens of Pinecrest Condo., 982 So. 2d 1211, 1213-14 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Richard Mulholland & Assocs. v. Polverari, 698 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Krypton Broad, of Jacksonville, Inc. v. MGM-Pathe Commc’ns Co., 629 So. 2d 852, 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), disapproved on other grounds by Allstate, 655 So. 2d at 95. In the instant case, Mirmelli’s complaint and Hannon’s aff…
-
Diaz-Verson v. Walbridge Aldinger Co., 54 So. 3d 1007 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…Jacksonville, Inc. v. MGM-Pathe Commc’ns Co., 629 So. 2d 852, 854 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), disapproved on other grounds by Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 95 (Fla.1995) (emphasis added); see also Richard Mulholland & Assocs. v. Polverari, 698 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“A protective order should be granted when the pleadings indicate that the documents requested are not related to any pending claim or defense ....”) (emphasis added). Here, the pleadings, i.e., the second amended complaint…
-
Thomas J. Pusateri, M.D. v. Fernandez, 707 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)…that the information requested is neither relevant to any pending claim or defense nor will it lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995); Richard Mulholland & Assocs. v. Polverari, 698 So. 2d 1269, 1270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). Petitioners in this ease have made no statements such as those made by the doctor in Amente, but have merely denied the allegations in the complaint and asserted affirmative defenses. Although respondents may be able to jus…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Krypton Broad. OF Jacksonville, Inc. v. Mgm-Pathe Commc'ns Co., 629 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Walter v. Page, 638 So. 2d 1030 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)