FRANK LOPEZ, PETITIONER,
v.
IAN WALLACK, D/B/A PARK SEA-SURF SEA APARTMENTS, 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.
Frank Lopez sought a writ of certiorari challenging interrogatories in a personal injury action, claiming they invaded attorney work product and attorney-client privilege. The court granted the writ in part, holding that Lopez must answer interrogatories based on his own knowledge but cannot be compelled to disclose his attorney's impressions, opinions, or conclusions.
Lopez must answer interrogatories to the extent they seek information within his own knowledge, but cannot be compelled to answer portions requiring him to disclose his attorney's knowledge, opinions, or conclusions, as these constitute protected work product.
“Such information is merely counsel's impression and legal opinion and does not constitute facts germane to the cause upon which the issues are drawn between the parties.”
Establishes that attorney's legal opinions and impressions are not discoverable facts and do not relate to the merits of the case
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLopez was a plaintiff in a personal injury action arising from an accident. The defendant served interrogatories asking Lopez to identify persons with…
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 Interrogatories cases and more on FLexlaw
The petitioner, Frank Lopez, seeks a writ of certiorari pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 4.5(c), 31 F.S.A. and Article V, Section 4, of the Florida Constitution, F.S.A.
The trial court, in an action at law, required the petitioner (plaintiff) to answer the following interrogatories:
******
“10. State the names and addresses of any other persons believed or known by you, or your attorney, to have any knowledge concerning the facts pertaining to the within accident.”
******
“12. Of your knowledge, or that of your attorney, what injuries did you receive in the within accident ?
“13. Of your knowledge, or that of your attorney, list any permanent scars, disfigurements, disabilities or discomforts growing out of the within accident.
“14. Of your knowledge, or that of your attorney, please state the exact nature of all other physical and/or mental complaints attributable to the injuries you allegedly received in the within accident.
“15. To your knowledge, or that of your attorney, has any doctor or doctors assigned a disability rating to you, either on a temporary or permanent basis, as a result of the within accident ? If so, state the percentage or percentages and the name of the doctor or doctors giving same and whether such disability rating or ratings are temporary or permanent.”
******
Petitioner complains that the answers to these interrogatories seek to invade the work product of his attorney, or that they require a violation of the attorney-client privilege.
In Boucher v. Pure Oil Co., Fla.App. 1958, 101 So.2d 408, Judge Wiggington reviewed the reasons for granting certiorari of an interlocutory order entered in an action at law. His reasoning applies with equal vigor herein, and we agree.
In Dupree v. Better Way, Fla.1956, 86 So.2d 425, the Supreme Court required an answer to an interrogatory in a law action which was essentially the same as that set forth in Interrogatory No. 10 herein. Under the authority of Dupree, we conclude that the petitioner is required to answer that interrogatory and that it does not invade his attorney’s work product for the reasons cited therein.
As in Boucher, supra, we see no reason to permit an unwarranted search in*329to the mental impressions formed by counsel for an opposing party concerning his opinions or conclusions as to the law and theory applicable to his case. “Such information is merely counsel’s impression and legal opinion and does not constitute facts germane to the cause upon which the issues are drawn between the parties.” (Id., at 101 So.2d 411).
The petitioner may be required to answer the interrogatories set forth above of his own knowledge. That portion of the interrogatories which would require him to set forth the knowledge of his attorney is improper, inasmuch as it compels him to give his opinions and conclusions as to the knowledge of his attorney and attempts to invade the work product of his attorney.
The writ is hereby granted and the order entered in this cause be and the same is hereby quashed and held for naught.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Vermette v. Surf Drugs, Inc., 226 So. 2d 871 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)…e percentage given and the name of the doctor giving same, whether such disability rating was temporary or permanent.” The order requiring the response to this interrogatory is quashed, pursuant to authority found in Lopez v. Wallack, Fla.App.1967, 197 So. 2d 327. In interrogatories numbered 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 35, wherein the objection was overruled, the ruling denying this objection is sustained as to the plaintiff but quashed as to that portion of the interrogatories that required the plaintiff to re…
Authorities Cited
- Boucher v. The Pure OIL Co., 101 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
- Bd. OF Comm'rs OF State Insts. v. The Tallahassee Bank & Tr. Co. cum testamento annexo, 101 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Dupree v. Better WAY, Inc., 86 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1956)