CLAUDE DUPREE, PETITIONER,
v.
BETTER WAY, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION; WILLIAM LACKEY; RAYMOND MALSCHICK AND PHIL SELDIN, D/B/A RAPHIL'S, ALSO KNOWN AS RAPHIL'S DELICACY SHOP; AND AMOS CHARLES ROUNDTREE, 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.
In this discovery dispute, the Florida Supreme Court upheld an order requiring a plaintiff in a negligence action to disclose to opposing counsel the names and addresses of witnesses known to the plaintiff's attorneys. The court held that attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine do not shield factual information about witness identities from discovery.
Neither privilege nor work product doctrine shields witness identities from discovery. The interrogatory is proper under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 1.21(b), which permits examination regarding the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts.
“[QUOTE REDACTED — failed verbatim audit (paraphrase, not verbatim). See original_text for the text as originally displayed.]”
Establishes that work product doctrine does not protect factual witness information
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceClaude Dupree sued Better Way, Inc., William Lackey, Raymond Malschick, Phil Seldin, and Amos Charles Roundtree for negligence. During discovery, defe…
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
ROBERTS, Justice.
We here review, on common-law certiorari, an' order of the lower court requiring the petitioner, plaintiff below, to answer the following interrogatory directed to him by respondents, defendants below, in the course of a negligence suit instituted by petitioner against respondents:
"Please set forth the names and addresses of any other persons believed by you or known by you or your attorney to have knowledge concerning the facts pertaining to the within accident.”
The petitioner’s, answer to this interrogatory was as follows:
“8. Mike (last name not known to me) who works at George’s News,-1720 Alton Road, Miami Beach, Florida; policeman at the scene of the accident whose name I do not know. I do not know what persons with knowledge of this accident are known to my attorneys.”
The trial judge then entered the order here reviewed, directing the petitioner to “obtain from his attorneys, and his attorneys are directed to give to him, the names and addresses of all persons known to his attorneys who have any knowledge concerning the facts pertaining to the within accident, and the Plaintiff is directed to furnish said names and addresses in his answer to Interrogatory No. 8.”
The petitioner here contends that the information requested is both privileged and the work product of his attorneys, and that the lower court erred in requiring his attorneys to disclose it. This contention cannot be sustained.
The rule that an attorney cannot be compelled to divulge any communication made to him by his client without the consent of the client “does not extend to information which an attorney secures from a witness while acting for his client in anticipation of litigation.” Hickman v. Taylor, 1946, 329 U.S. 495, 508, 67 S.Ct. 385, 392, 91 L.Ed. 451. Nor can the information be withheld on the ground that it is the “work product” of the attorney. Under Rule 1.27 of the Florida Rules of 'Civil Procedure, F.S.A., a party may be interrogated as to “any matters which can be inquired into under Rule 1.21(b)”; and under Rule 1.21(b) “any person, including a party,” may be examined “regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action, ’ * * * including * * * the identity and location of persons having knowledge of relevant facts.” The interrogatory here in question is well within the “Scope of Examination” permitted by Rule 1.21(b), supra, and the petitioner’s attorney could not have refused to comply with the rule, had the information been sought by proceeding under Rule 1.21 to take the deposition of petitioner’s attorneys.
No error having been made to appear, certiorari should be and it is hereby
Denied.
DREW, C. J., and THOMAS and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So. 2d 108 (Fla. 1970)…of the District Court is quashed in part and affirmed in part and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith. It is so ordered. ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW and CARLTON, JJ., concur. . 226 So. 2d ST1 (Fla.App.3rd 1969). . 86 So. 2d 425 (Fla.1956). . “No. 27 — State the exact names and addresses or information for the location of all persons known by you, your agents, or attorneys who were or purport to have been eyewitnesses to the within accident. “No. 28 — State the exact name…1 / 2
-
Boucher v. The Pure OIL Co., 101 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957)
-
Shell v. State Rd. Dep't of Fla., 135 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1961)…s therefore in error. It is also asserted that the district court of appeal’s holding that the information sought was not subject to discovery is in error and is in direct conflict with the decision of this court in Dupree v. Better Way, Inc., Fla., 86 So. 2d 425. Our jurisdiction stems from the asserted conflict between the decision in the instant case and our opinion in Ramagli Realty Company v. Craver, supra, in which the-following statement appears: “Supreme Court rules prescribe that appeals from inte…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (U.S. 1947)