DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, BY AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PETITIONER,
v.
ANTONIO M. BOSCH, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LYDIA BOSCH, RESPONDENT; DADE COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, BY AND THROUGH ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, PETITIONER, V. ANTONIO M. BOSCH, AS NATURAL FATHER OF LYDIA BOSCH, A DECEASED MINOR, 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 Florida Third District Court of Appeal reviewed an order quashing a notice to depose an expert witness. The court held that the work product privilege does not protect an expert witness from discovery if the opposing party relies on that expert's work product.
No, the work product privilege does not protect an expert witness from discovery if the opposing party relies on the expert's work product. The mere listing of an expert as a prospective witness does not waive the privilege.
“In quashing the notice of taking deposition, the trial court has prevented the petitioner from seeking discovery examination in areas which would not be prohibited by the work product rules of limitation.”
Establishes the trial court's action and the appellate court's initial view of its impropriety.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDade County sought to depose Dr. George Schmitt, an expert witness for the plaintiff, Antonio M. Bosch. The trial court quashed the deposition notice,…
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 Waiver Of Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, by writ of certiorari, requests review of an interlocutory order in a common law action which quashed a notice of taking deposition of an expert witness of the respondent. In causes similar to this, this court and others have assumed jurisdiction of such writs; American Ladder & Scaffold Company v. Eadie, Fla.App. 1960, 120 So.2d 65; City of Sarasota v. Colbert, Fla. App. 1957, 97 So.2d 872.
The trial court granted the motion to quash the deposition of expert witness, Dr. George Schmitt, upon a motion pointing out that the doctor was an expert with whom counsel for the plaintiff-respondent herein had conferred relative to expert opinion surrounding the injury involved in litigation, and that any opinion of the doctor would constitute the work product of the plaintiff. In quashing the notice of taking deposition, the trial court has prevented the petitioner from seeking discovery examination in areas which would not be prohibited by the work product rules of limitation. This protection will fall when the respondent relies on the work product of the expert. See American Ladder & Scaffold Company v. Eadie, supra; Savino v. Luciano, Fla.1957, 92 So.2d 817. The mere listing of the expert as a prospective witness, pursuant to a pre-trial order as was *579done here, does not constitute a waiver of the work product privilege and this may be urged upon a proper protective motion. Therefore, the order complained of is quashed without prejudice to the trial court entertaining appropriate protective orders as to the work product developed by the prospective witness.
Writ granted and order quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ormond Beach First Nat'l Bank v. J. M. Montgomery Roofing Co., Inc., 189 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)…J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., J., concur. . Rule 4.2(a) F.A.R., 31 F.S.A. . Boucher v. Pure Oil Company, (Fla.App.1957) 101 So. 2d 408. . Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Belcher, (Fla.App.1962) 144 So. 2d 863; Dade County, etc. v. Bosch, (Fla.App.1961) 133 So. 2d 578. . Rule 1.24(a), F.R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. . Rule 1.24(b), F.R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. . Rule 1.34(d), F.R.C.P. . 2A Barron and Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure 50, § 644. . Haviland & Co. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., (S.D.N.Y.1962) 31 F.R.D. 578, 580.…
-
Hartstone Concrete Prods. Co., Inc. v. Ivancevich, 200 So. 2d 234 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…ntiff’s expert witnesses in the pre-trial order which was in due course entered in the case did not give the defendants an absolute right to discover their opinions regarding the accident. Dade County, By and Through Board of County Com’rs v. Bosch, 133 So. 2d 578 (3d DCA Fla.1961); Ford Motor Co. v. Havee, 123 So. 2d 572 (3d DCA Fla.1960). In Ford Motor Co. v. Havee, supra, the Court held that the analysis of the expert is privileged and not subject to discovery. By footnote, the Court noted a number of fed…
-
Motor Union (Aviation) Orion Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Franklyn Levenson, 153 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)…We there held that such use of the expert’s evidence was a waiver of any privilege which' otherwise might have been availed of as protection against a discovery deposition. In Dade County By and Through Board of County Com’rs v. Bosch, Fla.App.1961, 133 So. 2d 578, we quashed an order of the trial court which granted protection against such a deposition. In that case the doctor had been listed by the party who employed him as one of the witnesses to be called at trial. Where in the earlier American Ladder cas…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Savino v. Janies Luciano, 92 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1957)
- City OF Sarasota v. Colbert, 97 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1957)
- Am. Ladder & Scaffold Co. v. Montague Eadie and Paul Digirolamo, 120 So. 2d 65 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)