JEFFREY A. WATKINS AND EDLEN ELECTRICAL, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
JULIA A. WILKINSON, 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 a party's personal notes compiled for their own information, not at the direction of counsel, are not protected by the work product doctrine and must be produced.
Plaintiff referred to personal notes made in a 'little notebook' to refresh her memory for a deposition, which she compiled for her own information af…
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 Attorney Work Product cases and more on FLexlaw
HARRIS, J. .
Plaintiff/Respondent testified on deposition that at times in the past when she had been questioned about her prior medical history she had forgotten to mention certain injuries or had been untruthful. A couple of days before her deposition, she referred to notes she had made in order to refresh her memory. Certain of these records were kept at the direction of her counsel and are work product.
However, she also referred to her “little notebook” which she started preparing shortly after the accident to keep track of the medical treatment she received. She compiled these notes just for her own information and not at the direction of her lawyer. That is not work product. See, e.g., Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377, 1383-86 (Fla.1994) (work product doctrine protects from discovery materials pre pared by a party in anticipation of litigation).1
We grant certiorari and direct that the notebook be produced.
PETERSON and THOMPSON, JJ., concur. . If it had been work product, whether it should nonetheless be produced would then be a matter for the trial court’s discretion. See Deason, 632 So. 2d at 1385 (work product documents to be produced upon showing of need and undue hardship); Merlin v. Boca Raton Community Hosp., Inc., 479 So. 2d 236, 239 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (court has discretion as to production of notes used to refresh a witness’ or a party's memory other than while actually being deposed or testifying); see also III John Henry Wigmore, Wigmore on Evidence § 762, at 140 (Chadbourn rev., 3d ed.1970) (recommending that rule allowing inspection be applied to documents consulted for refreshment before testifying).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cowan v. Gray, 348 So. 3d 630 (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)…orida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4) governs discovery requests for work product, which includes documents prepared in anticipation of litigation. It is irrelevant for work product purposes that 2 Respondent’s reliance on Watkins v. Wilkinson, 724 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), is understandable but misplaced. In Watkins, we directed the production of a notebook prepared by an accident victim to record her medical treatments. 724 So. 2d at 717 (“She compiled these notes just for her own information and…
-
Proskauer Rose LLP v. Boca Airport, Inc., 987 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…osp., Inc., 479 So. 2d 236, 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). If the witness reviews documents before testifying to refresh his recollection, Boca Aviation argued that the court has discretion to order production of the documents citing Watkins v. Wilkinson, 724 So. 2d 717 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) and Merlin. Believing that Merlin requires production, the trial court granted the motion to compel. We agree with petitioner that Boca Aviation and the trial court have misread Merlin. In Merlin, we recognized that section 90.…
Authorities Cited
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1994)
- Ophelia Redden v. State, 479 So. 2d 236 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)