IMC HOSPITALITY, LLC, ETC.,
v.
ROGER LEDFORD, SR.,
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.
A party seeking discovery of work-product materials must make an affirmative showing of need and inability to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4). Where a party authored a statement, it may be discovered without such showing, but photographs prepared in anticipation of litigation cannot be compelled absent the required demonstration.
[1] Work-product materials prepared in anticipation of litigation may be discovered only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has need of the materials in preparat…
[2] A statement prepared in anticipation of litigation is discoverable without the heightened showing of need and undue hardship if the discovering party authored the stateme…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“A writ of certiorari is the proper method to review trial court orders compelling production of privileged discovery that is otherwise protected as work product; compelling such production presents the potential of a departure from the essential requirements of law, which would cause material harm from which there is no adequate remedy on final appeal.”
Establishes that certiorari is the appropriate remedy for reviewing orders compelling work-product disclosure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLedford suffered a slip-and-fall injury at a Pollo Tropical restaurant owned by IMC Hospitality. During discovery, Ledford sought an incident report a…
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 Slip And Fall Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed November 17, 2021. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D21-1593 Lower Tribunal No. 19-32735 ________________
IMC Hospitality, LLC, etc., Petitioner,
vs.
Roger Ledford, Sr., Respondent.
A Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Valerie
R. Manno Schurr, Judge.
Conroy Simberg, and Hinda Klein and Samuel B. Spinner (Hollywood), for petitioner.
Steinger, Greene & Feiner, and Todd L. Baker (Fort Lauderdale), for respondent.
Before EMAS, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.
SCALES, J.
I.
RELEVANT FACTS
During discovery, Ledford sought both a copy of an incident report that was prepared immediately after Ledford’s accident, as well as photographs of the accident scene that were taken by an IMC employee. IMC objected to the discovery requests because the incident report and photographs were prepared in anticipation of litigation and, therefore, were protected by the work-product privilege. See Marshalls of M.A., Inc. v. Witter, 186 So. 3d 570, 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016) (“Incident reports, internal investigative reports, and information gathered by employees to be used to defend against potential
1 See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(4).
II.
ANALYSIS
“A writ of certiorari is the proper method to review trial court orders compelling production of privileged discovery that is otherwise protected as work product; compelling such production presents the potential of a departure from the essential requirements of law, which would cause material harm from which there is no adequate remedy on final appeal.” Seaboard Marine Ltd. v. Clark, 174 So. 3d 626, 628 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).
2 According to Ledford, he filled out the entire incident report, which was written in English, by himself because the assistant manager had difficulty writing Ledford’s name and because it appeared that English was not the assistant manager’s first language.
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(4) (emphasis added). We conclude that Ledford satisfied the rule’s requirements with respect to production of the incident report, but failed to make the required showing with respect to production of the photographs.
A. The Incident Report
As to the incident report, the trial court determined that Ledford was the more credible witness and found that Ledford, rather than the assistant manager, had prepared the document, thereby satisfying the requirements
B. The Photographs
As to the photographs, rather than considering whether Ledford had made the required showing under rule 1.280(b)(4), the trial court found that IMC had somehow “waived” the work-product privilege because of an inconsistency between the assistant manager’s affidavit and the assistant manager’s hearing testimony as to who took the photographs of the accident scene. The assistant manager’s affidavit averred that she took the
3 See Kmart Corp. v. Sundmacher, 997 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Fla. Power Corp. v. Dunn, 850 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).
174 So. 3d at 628.
We conclude that, under the facts presented here, forcing the production of otherwise privileged photographs constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law. Id. We, therefore, grant the petition in part and quash that portion of the challenged order requiring IMC to produce the subject photographs.
Petition granted in part and denied in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Marshalls OF M.A., Inc. v. Mecca Witter, 186 So. 3d 570 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)
- Michael Anthony Co. v. Palm Springs Townhomes, 174 So. 3d 428 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Fla. Power Corp. v. Dunn, 850 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Seaboard Marine Ltd. v. Farconelly Clark, 174 So. 3d 626 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)
- Kmart Corp. v. Sundmacher, 997 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)