KENLEIGH ASSOCIATES, A NEW JERSEY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PETITIONER,
v.
HARRIS-INTERTYPE CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
Kenleigh Associates sought a writ of certiorari to review a trial court's protective order that shielded all internal corporate communications from discovery as privileged. The appellate court rejected the broad blanket privilege, finding no legal basis for protecting all intracorporate documents and remanding for the trial court to consider more narrowly tailored grounds for protection.
A blanket protective order shielding all internal corporate communications as privileged is improper and lacks legal precedent. The trial court's order is quashed and remanded for the court to determine whether the alternative grounds for a protective order—improper procedure, overly broad scope, or improper direction to individual defendants—are applicable.
[1] Internal corporate communications are not categorically privileged.
[2] A broad demand for documents in a notice of deposition duces tecum may warrant a protective order.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“the petitioner proceeded improperly in the trial court by resorting to a notice of taking deposition duces tecum in order to obtain documents which were not properly subject to discovery under Rule 1.350”
Sets forth the respondents' argument that the procedural mechanism used was improper
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenleigh Associates, a New Jersey limited partnership, sought discovery from Harris-Intertype Corporation and related defendants through a notice of t…
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 Privilege cases and more on FLexlaw
We are presented with a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of the trial court which limited discovery sought by the plaintiff. The petition urges that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in holding that all internal corporate communications are privileged.1 Conversely, the respondents contend that the trial judge was correct because (a) the petitioner proceeded improperly in the trial court by resorting to a notice of taking deposition duces tecum in order to obtain documents which were not properly subject to discovery under Rule 1.350, RCP, 30 F.S.A., as amended effective January 1, 1973 (Fla., 265 So.2d 21); (b) the scope of the demand contained in the notice was so broad as to require a protective order; and, (c) the notice improperly directed individual defendants to produce corporate documents. The respondents have not been able to come forward with precedent holding that all intracorporate documents are privileged, and we have found no precedent.
The petition for writ of certiorari will be granted and the order quoted is quashed. This action shall be without prejudice to further proceedings before the trial judge to determine whether the alternative grounds for the protective order advanced by the respondents are applicable, and to the granting of such a protective order if the trial court finds said grounds applicable.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Weeks, 696 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…ed in anticipation of litigation and are protected from disclosure without presenting evidence to support its claim. See Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., v. McCann, 402 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Kenleigh Assocs. v. Harris-Intertype Corp., 279 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The trial court cannot be held to have abused its discretion when Wal-Mart failed to meet its burden of proof. The petition is denied as to the requests for production which are the subject of this petition. With regard to the i…
-
Universal City Dev. P'rs, Ltd. v. Pupillo, 54 So. 3d 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…ed in anticipation of litigation and are protected from disclosure without presenting evidence to support its claim. See Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., v. McGann, 402 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Kenleigh Assocs. v. Harris-Intertype Corp., 279 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The trial court cannot be held to have abused its discretion when Wal-Mart failed to meet its burden of proof. The petition is denied as to the requests for production which are the subject of this petition. Id. The cases are le…
Authorities Cited
- In re THE Fla. BAR: Rules of Civil Procedure, 265 So. 2d 21 (Fla. 1972)