ORKIN EXTERMINATING COMPANY, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
KNOLLWOOD PROPERTIES, LTD., ETC., 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.
Orkin Exterminating challenged a discovery order requiring its expert witness to identify prior cases in which he had testified. The Florida appellate court affirmed the order, holding that experts must disclose their prior trial and deposition testimony as required by the rules of civil procedure, even if doing so requires reference to financial or business records.
The court affirmed the order to compel. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii)3 authorizes discovery of the identity of cases in which an expert has testified within a reasonable time period. Experts must supply this information if requested and wish to testify in Florida court, and may be required to do so through financial or business documents if necessary.
[1] A party may obtain from an expert witness the identity of other cases in which the expert has testified by deposition or at trial within a reasonable time period.
[2] A court may order a party to produce financial or business records if they are the only means by which an expert can provide discoverable information.
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“Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii)3. provides that during discovery a party may obtain from a person expected to be called as an expert witness at trial the identity of other cases, within a reasonable time period, in which the expert has testified by deposition or at trial.”
Establishes the explicit rule authorizing discovery of expert's prior testimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOrkin retained expert entomologist Dr. Douglas Mampe for litigation. Knollwood sought discovery requesting a list of all cases in the past ten years w…
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
GRIFFIN, Chief Judge.
Petitioner, Orkin Exterminating Company, Ine. [“Orkin”], seeks certiorari review of an order requiring its expert to provide the identity of prior cases in which he has testified. Orkin is the defendant in the underlying action brought by respondent, Knollwood Properties, Ltd. [“Knollwood”].
Orkin retained C. Douglas Mampe, Ph.D., as an expert entomologist. Knollwood served a notice of taking deposition of Dr. Mampe, which included the request that Dr. Mampe bring with him a list of all cases for the past ten years, including court case numbers, in which he had testified or conducted an investigation or prepared the reports as an expert witness. In his deposition, Dr. Mampe was asked if he had brought such a list with him. Dr. Mampe responded:
No. That’s just an impossible job. I probably have thirty a year. Go back seventeen years, that’s a lot of cases; and I don’t keep track of them once the case has been settled, closed, or disposed of in one form or another. On further questioning it was clarified that Dr. Mampe did not necessarily testify in all of these cases in which he was engaged as an expert.
Knollwood subsequently filed a motion to compel Dr. Mampe or Orkin to produce a list of cases in which Dr. Mampe had testified in deposition or at trial, or alternatively, the documents from which such a list could be complied. A hearing was held, and the lower court granted the motion to compel, directing that Orkin provide Knollwood with the identity of the eases in which Dr. Mampe had testified, either by deposition or at trial, during the past three years. Because the expert indicated that he did not keep a list of his prior cases, the lower court provided that Orkin may comply with this order by providing a list of such cases to Knollwood or, alternatively, by producing billing records, 1099 forms or other documents within the control of Orkin or their expert for which the identity of the cases in which the expert has testified during the past three years may be determined. The court further stated that in the event Orkin does not comply with the order, the expert shall not be permitted to testify at trial. Orkin contends that this order violates principles set forth in the case-law that an expert not be required to create documents that do not exist or that an expert not be required to produce financial or business records except under usual or compelling circumstances.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii)3. provides that during discovery a party may obtain from a person expected to be called as an expert witness at trial the identity of other cases, within a reasonable time period, in which the expert has testified by deposition or at trial. The lower court reduced the number of years from ten to three in which the expert would have to identify prior cases in which he actually testified by deposition or at trial. This ruling is consistent with Syken v. Elkins, 644 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), approved, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla.1996).
Orkin asserts that because no list identifying the cases exists and because the only source documents the expert has are “financial or business” records, the court order violates Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii)4, which provides that an expert may be required to produce financial and business records only under the most unusual or compelling circumstances.
We find no merit to this argument. Subsection (b)(4)(A)(iii) authorizes certain basic information to be discovered. If the expert is only able to supply the information by providing financial or business documents, it is appropriate to order it done. Whether the identity of the cases in which the expert has testified is an exception to the general exemption from discovery of financial or business records, or whether the inability to supply the information without reference to these documents qualifies as an unusual or compelling circumstance, does not matter. The expert must supply this information if requested and if the expert wishes to testify in a Florida court. The lower court was eminently correct in its ruling.
DENIED.
W. SHARP and GOSHORN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Ins. Co. v. Pinder, 746 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…were, nothing in Boecher suggests a party should [*1257] be entitled to have another party respond to a request to produce by creating a nonexistent document. Respondent misuses our decision in Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Knollwood Properties, Ltd., 710 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). There we simply said an expert must supply the information required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)A(iii), and cannot avoid this duty denying he has a document that contains the information or by asserting that th…
-
Gramman v. Stachkunas, 750 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…lose personal financial information. Id. at 521. In the instant case, the trial court did not make a finding that unusual or compelling circumstances existed. At the hearing on the motions to compel, respondents cited Orkin v. Knollwood Properties, 710 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), in which this court held that discovery of an expert’s business and financial records was proper where they were the only documents the expert had that would comply with his discovery obligation to provide a list of prior cases…
-
Orthopedic Care Ctr. v. Parks, 155 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…information to further discover the extent of any potential bias. We also find no merit in Orthopedic’s assertion that Parks’ request would require it to create a document that does not exist. See Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Knollwood Props., Ltd., 710 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). II. Section 456.057, Florida Statutes Finally, Orthopedic argues that the order violates section 456.057, Florida Statutes (2014), which protects against the disclosure of patient information. This statute concerns the control…
Authorities Cited
- Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996)
- Syken v. Elkins, 644 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)