TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P., AND ALLIED TUBE & CONDUIT CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
2711 HOLLYWOOD BEACH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., 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.
Tyco Fire Products and Allied Tube & Conduit sought a writ of certiorari to prevent disclosure of five documents they claimed were protected by attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine in a products liability lawsuit involving fire sprinkler defects. The Florida District Court of Appeal granted the petition and quashed the trial court's order directing disclosure of the five documents.
The court granted the petition and quashed the trial court's order directing disclosure of the five documents. The court found that the disclosure of attorney-client privileged information constitutes irreparable harm appropriate for certiorari review, and that the requesting party failed to meet its considerable burden to show significant need and undue hardship for obtaining work product. Two of the documents also qualified for work product protection.
[1] Disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege is irreparable harm for purposes of certiorari jurisdiction.
[2] The "cat-out-of-the-bag" problem resulting from the disclosure of privileged attorney-client communications supports certiorari review.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege is well recognized as irreparable harm for purposes of our certiorari jurisdiction.”
Establishes the legal standard for certiorari review of privilege disclosure orders and why such disclosure constitutes irreparable harm.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe underlying lawsuit involves allegations of fire sprinkler product defects and misrepresentations that occurred when incompatible coated steel 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 Opinion Work Product cases and more on FLexlaw
Tyco Fire Products, L.P. (“Tyco”), and Allied Tube & Conduit Corporation (“Allied”), seek a writ of certiorari to quash a non-final order directing disclosure of five documents1 alleged to be privileged attorney-client communications and protected opinion work product. We grant the petition and quash the order insofar as it directs disclosure of those five documents.2
The underlying lawsuit alleges fire sprinkler product defects, and misrepresentations regarding those products, occurring when incompatible coated steel and chlorinated polyvinyl chloride pipes are used in a single system. The five documents were created by, or directed to, attorneys advising Tyco, Allied, and controlled affiliates regarding these products and the alleged problem.
“The disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege is well recognized as irreparable harm” for purposes of our certiorari jurisdiction. Coffey-Garcia v. S. Miami Hosp., Inc,, 194 So.3d 533, 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (citing Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So.3d 450, 457 (Fla.2012). We have repeatedly described the “cat-out-of-the-bag” problem that results from the judicially-ordered disclosure of privileged attorney-client communications. See, e.g., Mana v. Cho, 147 So.3d 1098, 1100 (Fla. 3d *301DCA 2014); Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So.3d 66, 71 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
Certiorari is also “the proper method to review trial court orders compelling production of privileged discovery that is otherwise protected as work product[,]” Seaboard Marine, Ltd. v. Clark, 174 So.3d 626, 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016), where, as here, the requesting party has failed to carry its “considerable burden to show that the party has both a significant need and an undue hardship in obtaining a substantial equivalent.” Id. Two of the documents also include protected work product as to which respondent’s burden was not met.
We grant the petition and quash the order directing disclosure with respect to the five previously-identified documents (and only as to those documents).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 2012)
- Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Coffey-Garcia v. S. Miami Hosp., Inc., 194 So. 3d 533 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Moishe Mana v. CHO, 147 So. 3d 1098 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Seaboard Marine Ltd. v. Farconelly Clark, 174 So. 3d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)