CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL OF COLORADO, LLC
v.
YUVITKZA QUINONES
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.
Chipotle sought certiorari review of a trial court order overruling its discovery objections in a premises liability action. The court granted the petition and quashed the order because it was entered by default due to counsel's late appearance, and the trial court failed to conduct the required in camera inspection of documents claimed to be privileged.
The court quashed the trial court's order because the ruling was entered by default and the trial court failed to conduct the required in camera inspection of privileged documents. Failure to timely raise privilege objections does not automatically result in waiver, and the trial court is obligated to conduct an in camera inspection even if a privilege claim is untimely raised.
[1] Failure to timely raise objections based on attorney-client privilege does not result in automatic waiver of the privilege claim.
[2] A trial court must conduct an in camera inspection of documents claimed to be privileged regardless of whether the privilege objection was raised late.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChipotle's counsel appeared approximately 15 minutes late to a one-hour hearing on discovery objections. The trial court entered a default ruling agai…
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 Privileged Documents cases and more on FLexlaw
Lara S. Shiner of Shiner Law Group, P.A., Boca Raton, for respondent. PER CURIAM.
Chipotle Mexican Grill of Colorado, LLC (“Chipotle”), petitions this court for certiorari review of the trial court’s order overruling its objections to discovery requests made by the plaintiff, Yuvitkza Quinones (“Quinones”), in the underlying premises liability action. We grant the petition and quash the trial court’s order because the trial court’s ruling was entered by default, and the trial court failed to conduct an in camera inspection of documents, which Chipotle claimed to be privileged.
Due to a calendaring error, Chipotle’s counsel appeared approximately fifteen minutes late for a special set one-hour hearing, which was set to address a variety of matters including Chipotle’s objections to Quinones’s first request for production and first set of interrogatories. The record reflects that the trial court entered a default ruling in favor of Quinones due to counsel’s failure to timely appear.1 In overruling Chipotle’s objections, the trial court also failed to conduct an in camera inspection of various documents that Chipotle claimed to be privileged. These documents were specifically identified in a privilege log filed by Chipotle. 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 to be privileged. Mufti, 935 So. 2d at 123. Failure to conduct the requisite in camera inspection is a departure from the essential requirements of the law. Id.
Quinones also argues that Chipotle failed to timely file its privilege log. However, the obligation to file a privilege log does not arise until after a party’s written objections have been ruled upon. Gosman v. Luzinski, 937 So. 2d 293, 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
Accordingly, we grant the petition and quash the trial court’s order to the extent that it overruled Chipotle’s objections to Quinones’s first request for production and first set of interrogatories.
WARNER, TAYLOR and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aaraya Pub. Adjusting, LLC v. Crucial Claims, Inc. (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)
-
Fla. Dep't of Law Enf't v. Johnson (Fla. 1st DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Austin v. Barnett Bank OF S. Fla., N.A., 472 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)
- Holbrook v. State, 937 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Gosman v. Luzinski, 937 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)
- Palm Beach Primary Care Assocs., Inc. v. Saima Mufti, M.D., 935 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)