JORDAN GRABEL, M.D., KRISTINA MICHELLE BRANA, AND ROSCOX CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
ADOLFO ROURA, 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 Fourth District Court of Appeal granted in part a petition for writ of certiorari challenging trial court discovery orders requiring production of an expert witness's financial records. The court held that broad financial discovery from non-party insurance carriers exceeded the limits of Florida's discovery rules and was not justified by minor inconsistencies in the expert's prior responses.
The court held that the alleged inconsistencies do not constitute 'unusual or compelling circumstances' warranting extensive financial discovery of the expert's records. The rule expressly provides that experts need not disclose their earnings as an expert witness, and the broad subpoenas to twenty non-party insurance carriers exceeded the scope permitted by the discovery rule. The defendants and the doctor had already provided all information required regarding bias issues.
[1] Inconsistencies in an expert witness's deposition responses and interrogatory answers do not, without more, constitute "unusual or compelling circumstances" to warrant br…
[2] Discovery of an expert witness's financial and business records is limited to an approximation of the expert's involvement as an expert witness.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The rule expressly provides that 'the expert shall not be required to disclose his or her earnings as an expert witness.'”
Establishes the fundamental prohibition on requiring expert earnings disclosure under Florida's discovery rules
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Jordan Grabel, a defense expert witness, provided interrogatory answers and deposition responses regarding his income from expert witness work and…
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 Expert Witness Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
We grant in part these consolidated petitions for writ of certiorari seeking review of trial court discovery orders.
Following our decision in Brana v. Roura, 144 So.3d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), the trial court determined that the deposition responses of Dr. Jordan Grabel, the defense expert witness, were inconsistent with the interrogatory answers provided by defense counsel. The inconsistencies concerned the percentage of income the doctor derives from working as an expert witness and the number of times he has testified for plaintiffs and defendants in personal injury litigation. The trial court concluded that these inconsistencies constituted “the most unusual or compelling circumstances” that allowed production of the expert’s “financial and business records.” See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(5)(A)(iii).
We disagree. The disputed discovery exceeds the provisions of rule 1.280(b) (5) (A)(iii)4, which limits discovery to an approximation of the expert’s involvement as an expert witness. See Gra-bel v. Sterrett, 163 So.3d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quashing improper expert discovery directed at this same doctor).
The defendants and the doctor provided all the information required on the issue' of bias. The court nevertheless allowed plaintiff to issue subpoenas to twenty non-party insurance carriers, not shown to have any involvement in this litigation.1 The subpoenas require production of financial records (including tax records) showing the total amount of fees paid to the doctor for expert litigation services since 2009. This extensive financial discovery as to a retained expert exceeds that allowed by the rule and is unnecessary. The rule expressly provides that “the expert shall not be required to disclose his or her earnings as an expert witness.” Id.
Here, the alleged inconsistencies do not constitute “unusual or compelling circumstances” to warrant such broad financial disclosure. See Buck v. Chin, 19 So.3d 1132, 1134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009). There is no showing that the inconsistencies are the result of falsification, misrepresentation, or obfuscation. See id.
We deny the petition as to the other discovery permitted without discussion.
Petition granted in part.
STEVENSON, LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1999)
- Springer v. West, 769 So. 2d 1068 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Buck v. Josee Chin, 19 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)
- Jordan Grabel, M.D. v. Sterrett, 163 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Brana v. Adolfo Roura, 144 So. 3d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)