SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
LORI FELLER, LEGAL GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON AND PROPERTY OF JAMES MONDELLO, R. KEITH WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY; R. KEITH WILLIAMS, P.A. ; CHRISTINE MONDELLO; RICHARD G. HALPERN, 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 court held that certain documents were protected by attorney-client privilege and work-product doctrine, and thus the trial court's order to produce them was erroneous.
Petitioner sought a writ of certiorari challenging an order requiring production of documents from its case file. The trial court conducted an in came…
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 In Camera Review cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari, challenging an order overruling its work-product and attorney-client privilege objections to the production of parts of its case file. We previously ordered the trial court to conduct an in camera review of the documents originally requested by Respondent, Lori Feller. See Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Feller , 163 So.3d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).
On remand, the trial court conducted an extensive in camera review of the numerous documents initially at issue. Petitioner now challenges the June 2017 order to the extent it requires Petitioner to produce documents 119, 132, 134, 135, 218-219, 220-221, 231-232, 360-361, 393-396, and 596-597 as designated in the sealed portion of the record.
After conducting our own review of the documents, we conclude that documents 218-219, 231-232, and 596-597 are privileged attorney-client communications. Accordingly, the trial court's order requiring production of said documents constituted a departure from the essential requirements of law. See § 90.502(2), Fla. Stat. (2006) ; see also Genovese v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. , 74 So.3d 1064, 1068 (Fla. 2011) ("[T]he attorney-client privilege, unlike the work-product doctrine, is not concerned with the litigation needs of the opposing party.") We also conclude that *466documents 360-361 are protected by the work-product doctrine. We deny the petition as to the remaining documents.
PETITION GRANTED, in part; DENIED, in part; and REMANDED.
BERGER and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Peter R. Genovese, M.D. v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 74 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2011)
- Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., Inc. v. Feller, 163 So. 3d 1252 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)