S. J. SPECTOR, JULIUS SPECTOR, LOUIS SPECTOR AND ELMOR SPECTOR, AS CO-PARTNERS, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF SPECTOR & SONS, APPELLANTS,
v.
FRANK ALTER, MORTON CAHN, FABB ENTERPRISES, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND 529 CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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 the trial court erred in quashing a deposition notice without a showing of good cause, as not all matters inquired into would necessarily be privileged.
Appellants sought to depose the attorney for the appellees-defendants. The trial court quashed the notice, finding any matter inquired into would be p…
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 Discovery Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellants seek review by interlocutory appeal of an order in chancery. The order complained of quashed a notice to take the deposition of Lawrence E. Hoffman, the attorney for the appellees-defendants below, on the ground that “any matter inquired into would be privileged.”
We recognize that the trial judge, under our rules 1 may, in his discretion, suppress or qualify the right to take depositions, but it is limited to those instances in which good cause is made to appear. See Ellard v. Godwin, Fla.1955, 77 So.2d 617.
In quashing the order appealed the lower court has improperly prevented the appellants from seeking proper discovery information in areas not privileged. See Dade County, By and Through Board of County Com’rs v. Bosch, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 578. Many communications in which an attorney is involved are not privileged. Hood v. Hood, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 422.
We find that the record does not support the lower court’s finding that all relevant matters which could be the subject of the deposition of the appellee’s attorney would necessarily be privileged. There being no showing of good cause, the appellants are thus entitled to depose the attorney, Lawrence E. Hoffman. However, if at any time it appears that appellants are seeking discovery of information which is privileged, a proper protective motion may be made. It follows therefore, that it was error to enter the order appealed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Keys Boys Club, Inc. v. Pelekis, 265 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)…date. Town of New Castle v. Rand, 101 N.H. 201, 136 A. 2d 914; Rule 1.290(d), R.C.P., 30 F.S.A. Such orders are generally within the discretion of a trial court. City of Miami Beach v. Wolfe, Fla.1955, 83 So. 2d 774; Spector v. Alter, Fla.App.1962, 138 So. 2d 517; Burgin v. Florida Gas Utilities Co., Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 267. We find that in the instant case, because of the seriousness of the charge made by the last amended counterclaim, the appellants should be permitted to take the oral deposition of t…
-
Mich. Life Ins. Co. v. Greaves, 261 So. 2d 856 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)…PER CURIAM. Certiorari denied. Ormond Beach First National Bank v. J. M. Montgomery Roofing Company, Inc. (Fla.App.1966) 189 So. 2d 239; Spector v. Alter (Fla.App.1962) 138 So. 2d 517. SPECTOR, C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAWLS, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Beulah M. Ellard v. Godwin, 77 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 1955)
- Dade Cnty. v. Bosch, 133 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Hood v. Hood, 100 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)