DISMAS CHARITIES, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
SUSAN DABBS, 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.
Dismas Charities sought certiorari review of a discovery order that denied its work product privilege objections without adequate findings. The court granted the petition and quashed the order, holding that trial courts must make particularized findings when denying work product objections to facilitate meaningful appellate review.
The court held that trial courts must make particularized findings in support of denials of work product objections to facilitate meaningful appellate review. The order denying work product objections was quashed and remanded for reconsideration with required findings.
[1] A trial court must make particularized findings to support its denial of work product objections to the production of documents to facilitate meaningful appellate review.
[2] Failure to make findings in support of denying work product objections warrants quashing the trial court's order.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“such findings are necessary to facilitate a meaningful review of the trial court's reasons for denying work product objections”
Establishes the legal standard requiring trial courts to make particularized findings when denying work product privilege claims
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court conducted an in-camera inspection of documents and found that three were privileged attorney-client communications. The trial court de…
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 Non-Final Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Dismas Charities, Inc., seeks certiorari review of a non-final order that granted in part and denied in part petitioner’s objections to the production of certain documents. Petitioner contends that the order should be quashed because the trial court did not make findings in support of its denial of petitioner’s work product objections to the production of the documents. Petitioner also argues that the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing on the work product objections. This argument is not preserved because petitioner failed to request such a hearing in the trial court.
After an in-camera inspection of the documents the trial court found that three of the documents were “privileged attorney-client communications.” However, the trial court denied petitioner’s claims of work product privilege as to the remaining documents. We find merit in petitioner’s argument that the order should be quashed because the trial court failed to make any findings in support of its denial of petitioner’s work product objections. This court has held that such findings are necessary to facilitate a meaningful review of the trial court’s reasons for denying work product objections. See Aetna Ins. Co. v. Koganovsky, 661 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Assoc., Inc., 444 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Waste Mgmt. of Fla. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 544 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Selected Risks Ins. Co. v. White, 447 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
Accordingly, we grant certiorari review and quash that part of the trial court’s order denying petitioner’s work product objections. We remand with instructions to the trial court to reconsider the work product objections and to make particularized findings in support of its determination of which of the documents are, or are not, subject to the work product privilege. The trial court may, upon appropriate motion, conduct such hearings as may be necessary to determine whether the documents are subject to the work product privilege. See Florida Power & Light v. Guettler, 589 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
CERTIORARI GRANTED.
DELL, FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Knapp, 234 So. 3d 843 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…jections. Such findings are necessary for meaningful appellate review. • This Court specifically addressed this issue in Magical Cruise Co. v. Turk, 114 So. 3d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013). In Turk, the majority relied on Dismas Charities, Inc. v. Dabbs, 795 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), granted certio-rari relief, and quashed an order requiring the petitioner to turn over work product because the trial court made no findings to justify the production. 114 So. 3d at 233; see also Harborside Healthcare, LLC v. Ja…
-
The Nemours Found. v. Arroyo, 262 So. 3d 208 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
-
Lloyd's Underwriters AT London v. El-Ad Villagio Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 976 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…the items ordered to be produced constitute work product, and if so, whether respondent is entitled to discovery of them notwithstanding that designation pursuant to rule 1.280, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. See Dismas Charities, Inc. v. Dabbs, 795 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Carriage Homes at Terra Mar Condo. Ass’n v. Kennedy Group, Ltd., 637 So. 2d 331 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Certiorari granted; trial court order quashed and case remanded. STONE, STEVENSON and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Assocs., Inc., 444 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Selected Risks Ins. Co. v. White, 447 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Waste Mgmt. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co., 544 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. a Corp. v. Guettler, 589 So. 2d 985 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- AETNA Ins. Co. v. Koganovsky, 661 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)