PALM BEACH PRIMARY CARE ASSOCIATES, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
SAIMA MUFTI, M.D., 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 trial court must consider objections to discovery based on privacy and privilege, even if the objections were untimely.
The former employer sought certiorari review of a non-final order compelling disclosure of confidential financial and patient data, treating objection…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.090(E) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Palm Beach Primary Care Associates, Inc. (the former employer) seeks certiorari review of a non-final order which granted the respondent’s motion to compel and required the former employer to disclose allegedly confidential financial and patient data, treating its objections to production as “waived.” We grant the petition.
We agree that the former employer’s response to request for production, like its response to the interrogatories, was untimely. The response was ordered to be provided within ten days of the date of the order compelling it, not within ten days of the date of service of that order. Accordingly, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(e), which applies when an act is to be done a certain amount of time “after the service of a notice or other paper upon that party” and the service is made by mail, did not apply. See Horvath v. Horvath, 893 So. 2d 649, 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Jewish Fed’n of Palm Beach Coun ty, Inc. v. Rapaport, 682 So. 2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
However, we find that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in failing to consider the former employer’s objections to discovery which were based on privacy and privilege concerns. Austin v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A., 472 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (holding that where privilege is asserted, the trial court should inspect the discovery requested in camera even though the petitioner’s assertion of a privilege was untimely).
Accordingly, the petition is granted to the extent discovery was ordered over such objections, and the trial court on remand is directed to consider on the merits the former employer’s privacy and privilege objections.
GUNTHER, STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colo., LLC v. Yuvitkza Quinones, 240 So. 3d 5 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018)…. Quinones argues that Chipotle waived its claims of privilege by failing to timely object. However, failure to timely raise objections based on privilege does not automatically result in waiver. Palm Beach Primary Care Assocs., Inc. v. Mufti, 935 So. 2d 122, 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Austin v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A., 472 So. 2d 830, 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Even if a claim of privilege is untimely raised, the trial court is required to conduct an in camera inspection of the documents claimed…
-
Aaraya Pub. Adjusting, LLC v. Crucial Claims, Inc. (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)…privilege. See Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. v. Quinones, 240 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) ("[F]ailure to timely raise objections based on privilege does not automatically result in waiver." (first citing Palm Beach Primary Care Assocs. v. Mufti, 935 So. 2d 122, 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); and then citing Austin v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A., 472 So. 2d 830, 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985))); Austin, 472 So. 2d at 830 ("[R]ule 1.380(d) does not require timely objection to privileged matters."); see also Allstate I…
-
Lloyd v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Austin v. Barnett Bank OF S. Fla., N.A., 472 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- THE Jewish Fed'n OF Palm Beach Cnty., Inc. v. Rapaport, 682 So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Horvath v. Horvath, 893 So. 2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)