PAMELA HOWARD, PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT TEPEDINO, ETC., ET AL, 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.
The Fifth District Court of Appeal quashed a discovery order compelling in camera inspection of attorney-client privileged communications, finding no waiver of the privilege occurred during the petitioner's deposition.
No waiver of attorney-client privilege occurred when the petitioner discussed her attorney's advice during her deposition, and therefore the trial court lacked authority to compel production of privileged documents for in camera inspection.
[1] Discussion of attorney advice during deposition does not constitute waiver of attorney-client privilege permitting compelled production of privileged communications for i…
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 intelligencePamela Howard, a plaintiff in a civil action, was deposed and discussed advice she received from her attorney at Smith, Gambrell, & Russell, LLP regar…
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 Confidential Communications cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, Pamela Howard, the plaintiff in the underlying civil action, seeks a writ of certiorari to quash a discovery order compelling the disclosure of confidential attorney-client communications for an in camera inspection. The discovery order was entered December 18, 2014, after a hearing on a motion to compel the production of documents, or in the alternative, for an in camera inspection. In the discovery order, the trial court found that there was a limited waiver of the attorney-client privilege by Petitioner during her deposition regarding the advice she received from her attorney at Smith, Gambrell, & Russell, LLP (“Smith Gambrell”) concerning the refinancing of a loan that is involved in the underlying litigation. The trial court ordered Petitioner to produce, for in camera inspection, e-mails with Smith Gambrell, which contained confidential communications regarding not only the loan transaction, but also a related mortgage.
Our review of the record before us reveals that there was no waiver of the attorney-client privilege. Because there was no waiver, there is no legitimate basis to order production of the documents protected by the attorney-client privilege for an in camera inspection. We, therefore, conclude that the trial court’s order departs from the essential requirements of the law resulting in irreparable harm to the Petitioner. We quash the order under review and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings.
ORDER QUASHED and REMANDED.
SAWAYA, EVANDER, and WALLIS, JJ., concur.