WAL-MART STORES, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
ANNIE E. BALLASSO AND CARL W. BALLASSO, HUSBAND AND WIFE, 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.
Walmart's petition for certiorari was granted in part; the court quashed the trial court's order compelling production of investigative files prepared in anticipation of litigation as work product, but denied the petition regarding a deposition.
Investigative files prepared in anticipation of litigation are privileged work product and need not be produced when the party seeking them has not demonstrated need or undue hardship.
[1] Investigative files prepared in anticipation of litigation are protected work product when litigation was foreseeable and the party seeking discovery has not demonstrated…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Experience has shown all retail stores that people who fall in their stores try to be compensated for their injuries.”
Supporting the conclusion that litigation was foreseeable and files were prepared in anticipation thereof.
Walmart was ordered by the trial court to produce investigative files related to an incident in which respondents allegedly suffered injuries at a Wal…
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 Anticipation Of Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant in part the petition for a writ of certiorari and quash the order regarding production of the investigative files. The investigative files prepared in anticipation of litigation are considered privileged because it was foreseeable that litigation might ensue from the incident. See McRae’s, Inc. v. Moreland, 765 So. 2d 196, 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Anchor Nat. Fin. Serv. Inc. v. Smeltz, 546 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307, 308 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) (“Experience has shown all retail stores that people who fall in their stores try to be compensated for their injuries.”) Furthermore, the respondents have not demonstrated their need for the files or shown an undue hardship in acquiring equivalent information. As the petitioner has sufficiently alleged that the investigatory files are protected as work product, the trial court abused its discretion and departed from the essential requirements of the law in compelling their production.
We deny the petition regarding Ms. Bethea’s deposition. As the petitioner argues about the prospective admissibility of evidence that may be obtained in the deposition, it is not appropriate for review by certiorari. It is difficult to determine at this stage the purpose for which the respondents would offer such evidence. See § 90.408, Fla. Stat. (1999) (excluding statements made in settlement negotiations only where offered to prove liability).
GRANTED in part; DENIED in part; and REMANDED for further proceedings.
BARFIELD, DAVIS and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005)…documents from discovery in the insurance bad faith context. See Vesta Fire Ins. v. Figueroa, 821 So. 2d 1233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); Fla. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. v. Copertino, 810 So. 2d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., v. Ballasso, 789 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); McRae’s, Inc. v. Moreland, 765 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Fla. Dep’t of Ins., 694 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Anchor Nat’l Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Smeltz, 546 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Bec…
-
Orange Park Christian Acad. v. Russell, 899 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…itute work product. We agree. The documents created in anticipation of litigation are privileged pursuant to the work product doctrine because it was foreseeable that litigation might ensue from the incident. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Ballasso, 789 So. 2d 519, 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); McRae’s, Inc. v. Moreland, 765 So. 2d 196, 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Additionally, both the teacher and principal gave deposition testimony indicating that each had contemplated litigation at the time the documents were prep…
Authorities Cited
- Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Varsenig Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Anchor Nat'l Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Smeltz, 546 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- McRAE'S, Inc. v. Moreland, 765 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)