SIDNEY WAYNE RAULERSON, PETITIONER,
v.
THOMAS FINNEY, 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 District Court of Appeal reviewed a trial court's discovery order requiring production of all witness statements without applying the proper legal standards. The court held that such blanket discovery orders violate the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which require specific showings of need and inability to obtain materials by other means before work product can be discovered.
A blanket discovery order requiring unqualified production of all witness statements without regard to the need standard or work product protections is not permissible under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The proper procedure under Rules 1.280 and 1.350 must be followed, requiring a showing of need and inability to obtain materials by other means, with protections for attorney mental impressions and legal theories.
[1] Discovery of witness statements prepared in anticipation of litigation requires a showing of need and inability to obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardshi…
[2] A court order compelling the production of all witness statements without regard to the rules of discovery is impermissible.
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“a party may obtain statements "prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that party's representative, including his attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer or agent, only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means".”
Establishes the legal standard under Rule 1.280 that must be met before discovering work product materials
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRaulerson, the defendant in a personal injury automobile collision case, sought certiorari review of a circuit court order. The plaintiff moved for pr…
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 Of Witness Statements cases and more on FLexlaw
We are presented with a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of an interlocutory order entered by the circuit court directing discovery by the production of “any and all witness statements they [the plaintiff and the defendant] have in their possession concerning the issues in this cause”. The petitioner is the defendant in an action for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of an automobile collision. The order was entered upon a motion of the plaintiff which set forth two grounds:
* * * * * *
“1. There is a need for these statements in order to properly prepare plaintiff’s case for trial.
“2. That it would constitute a substantial hardship to the plaintiff to attempt to obtain the statements otherwise.”
* * * * * *
*485Rule 1.280, RCP, 30 F.S.A., “General Provisions Governing Discovery”, effective January 1, 1973, has significantly changed a party’s right to the production of witness statements and the procedure to be followed in obtaining those statements. Rule 1.280 provides, among other things, that a party may obtain statements “prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that party’s representative, including his attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer or agent, only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has need of the materials in the preparation of his case and that he is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means”.
As a further explication of Rule 1.280, Rule 1.350(a) provides for the production of documents and delineates the scope that a party’s request to produce may encompass. Rule 1.350(b) governs the procedure for such a request, and specifically requires that:
“The request shall set forth the items to be inspected either by individual item or by category, and describe each item and category with reasonable particularity. The request shall specify a reasonable time, place and manner of making the inspection and performing the related acts. The party to whom the request is directed shall serve a written response within 30 days after the service of the request, except that a defendant may serve a response within 45 days after service of the process . . .”.
******
“For each item or category the response shall state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for objection shall be stated. If objection is made to part of an item or category, the part shall be specified. The party submitting the request may move for an order . . . concerning any objection or other failure to respond to the request or any part of it, or any failure to permit inspection as requested.”
In the case at bar, it is apparent that the trial court has taken a “short cut” in order to expedite the progress of the cause. While there can be no quarrel with the court’s purpose, we must hold that the procedure is not permissible. While the cited rules of civil procedure provide for a request and an opportunity to respond, the rules obviously do not call for the unqualified production of every statement without regard for need, and they contain provisions for protection against the production of documents or portions thereof which contain “the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation”.1 The purpose of the rules will be best accomplished by following the prescribed procedure. We do not imply that the procedure cannot be varied by agreement or where the peculiar facts of a case require a change in procedure. However, as the case at bar indicates, where there is an apparent need for the proofs and protections set forth in the rules, then the rules must be followed.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is granted and the order directing the parties “to produce any and all witness statements” is quashed. Of course, our action is without prejudice to the respondent to further proceed under the rules.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Maze, 318 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)…or the sought after statements in the preparation of their case. Further, the movants must demonstrate they are unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the equivalent of the statements by any other means. See Raulerson v. Finney, Fla.App.3rd 1973, 280 So. 2d 484. Likewise, a review of a variety of federal cases dealing with the identical federal rule (Rule 26) reveals the federal courts, in deciding whether to allow discovery of materials, will examine the motion to produce or other appropriate pleading in…
-
Winn Dixie & Crawford & Co. v. Teneyck, 656 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…ed.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.350(b). By not filing a motion to compel, Ms. Teneyck failed to follow the procedures outlined in the rules. See generally Stephens v. Southern Furniture Transports, Inc., 420 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982); Raulerson v. Finney, 280 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The servicing agent’s objection, even if picayune,2 did not justify what amounted to the striking of appellants’ defense, particularly in view of the fact that the servicing agent explicitly agreed to produce the application, alt…
-
Inapro, Inc. v. Alex Hofrichter, P.A., 665 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…So. 2d 988, 990 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). “The party submitting the request may move for an order under rule 1.880 concerning any objection ... or failure to permit inspection as requested.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.350(b) (emphasis added); see Raulerson v. Finney, 280 So. 2d 484, 485 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). A motion under rule 1.380 is a motion to compel discovery. Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.380(a). The motion to compel discovery must contain a particularized showing that the movant meets the need and undue hardship standard of rule 1.280(…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence