METABOLIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
ANGELA HOLSTER, ANDREW CROSS, CHARLES "CODY" PATE, STEPHEN HOLSTER, 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.
Metabolife sought certiorari review of a trial court order compelling discovery in a negligence and strict liability case involving a dietary supplement allegedly causing a stroke. The court denied the petition, holding that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in finding waiver of privilege claims due to Metabolife's failure to produce a privilege log as required by Florida civil procedure rules.
The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law. Trial courts have broad discretion in determining the scope of discovery and may find waiver of privilege claims when a party fails to produce a required privilege log under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5).
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in determining the scope of allowable discovery.
[2] A trial court may find waiver of privilege claims for failure to produce a privilege log.
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“A petition for writ of certiorari is appropriate to review a discovery order when the order departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings below and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing discovery orders by certiorari and what must be demonstrated to overturn them
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAngela Holster filed a negligence and strict liability action against Metabolife International, alleging she suffered an ischemic stroke after ingesti…
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 Trade Secret Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In its petition for writ of certiorari, Me-tabolife International, Inc. seeks review of a trial court order granting the motion to compel discovery filed by respondents in their negligence and strict liability action alleging that respondent Angela Holster suffered an ischemic stroke after ingesting a Metabolife dietary supplement containing ephedrine. The question before this court is whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ruling that Metabolife had waived its claims of privilege when it failed to file a privilege log and by requiring Metabolife to produce documents that it claimed were subject to attorney-client, work product, and trade secret privileges.
We find that the trial court acted within its discretion and, therefore, deny the petition for writ of certiorari. A petition for writ of certiorari is appropriate to review a discovery order when the order departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings below and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995).
The trial court possesses broad discretion in determining the scope of allowable discovery. Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, 641 So. 2d 855, 857 (Fla.1994).
Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5), trial courts have the discretion to find waiver of privilege claims for failure to produce a privilege log. General Motors Corp. v. McGee, 837 So. 2d 1010, 1032 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); see also Nationwide Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Hess, 814 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). Respondents argue, and the trial court agreed, that, because Metabolite failed to produce a privilege log as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5), any claims of privilege have been waived.
Based upon the record before us on appeal, we conclude that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in its order compelling production. Topp Telecom, Inc. v. Atkins, 763 So. 2d 1197, 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Florida Sheriffs Self-Insurance Fund v. Escambia County, 585 So. 2d 461, 464 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Cooey, 359 So. 2d 1200, 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978).
Petition DENIED.
ALLEN, VAN NORTWICK AND BROWNING, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Anderson Columbia & Commercial Risk Mgmt., Inc. v. Brown, 902 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…view a discovery order when the order departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings below and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.” Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Holster, 888 So. 2d 140, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995)). In this case, the challenged order does not depart from the essential requirements of law. Accordingly, we deny the petition. The respondent/claimant, Ja…
-
Hannon v. Steven Roper, M.D., 945 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…ly petition for certiorari follows. A writ of certiorari should only be issued where the petitioner has no adequate remedy on appeal and where the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of law. Metabolife Intl, Inc. v. Holster, 888 So. 2d 140, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Here, the trial court’s order denying Petitioner’s motion for protective order based on a claim of privilege clearly [*536] satisfies the first requirement. Estate of Stephens ex rel. Clark v. Galen Health Care, Inc., 911 S…
-
Nan H. Mullins, D.M.D. v. Tompkins, 15 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…oting Bd. of Regents v. Snyder, 826 So. 2d 382, 387 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). “A petition for writ of certiorari is appropriate to review a discovery order when the order departs from the essential requirements of law,” Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Holster, 888 So. 2d 140, 141 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995)), and would require disclosure negating a petitioner’s legal privilege in “violation of a clearly established principle of law.” Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d…
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
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995)
- Topp Telecom, Inc. v. Atkins, 763 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Watford v. State, 837 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Cooey, 359 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)
- Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Hess, 814 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)
- Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 641 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1994)
- Fla. Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund v. Escambia Cnty., 585 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)