GREGORY F. SPEER, EUGENE A. SPEER AND STONEWALL INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
JOSEPH DESROSIERS, JR., A MINOR BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, JOSEPH DESROSIERS, SR., AND JOSEPH DESROSIERS, SR., INDIVIDUALLY, 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 a personal injury discovery dispute, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal holds that a party requesting production of materials prepared in anticipation of litigation must include in the discovery request itself a specific showing of need and inability to obtain the equivalent by other means, not merely bare assertions.
A party requesting production of materials under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2) must include within the request itself a specific showing of need and of inability to obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship. A 'showing' requires specific explanations and reasons, not merely bare assertions.
[1] A party seeking discovery of materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial must demonstrate within the request that they have need of the materials and ar…
[2] A showing of need for discovery of materials prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial requires specific explanations and reasons, not merely a bare assertion.
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 requesting production of Rule 1.280(b)(2) materials must include within the request a showing of need and of inability to obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship. A "showing" is more than a bare assertion; it consists of specific explanations and reasons.”
Establishes the court's holding that bare assertions are insufficient and specific explanations are required in the discovery request itself.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondents (plaintiffs in the personal injury action) served a Request to Produce on defendants. Defendants filed objections to the requests. Followi…
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 Substantial Equivalent cases and more on FLexlaw
ALDERMAN, Chief Judge.
The respondents, plaintiffs in this personal injury action, served a Request to Produce on the defendants, to which the defendants filed certain objections. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the defendants’ objections to some of the requests. The defendants then petitioned this court for writ of certiorari, which we grant on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to make a showing in their request for production “that the party seeking discovery has need of the materials [prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial] 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 required by Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.280(b)(2).
The only words in the plaintiffs’ Request to Produce which might be considered a showing of need were these:
Further, plaintiff(s) would state that the above items are relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation and the plaintiff(s) has need of the materials in the preparation of their case, and the plaintiff(s) are unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent by other means.
The record does not reveal what demonstration of need the plaintiffs may have presented during the hearing before the trial court, but in any event we hold that a party requesting production of Rule 1.280(b)(2) materials must include within the request a showing of need and of inability to obtain the substantial equivalent without undue hardship. A “showing” is more than a bare assertion; it consists of specific explanations and reasons.
As for the time when the showing must be made, we believe that a reading of Rule 1.280(b)(2) itself leaves no doubt that a showing in the request for production itself is contemplated. The rule states that a party may obtain discovery “only upon a showing . . . .” It was obviously intended that the showing should be made as a routine prerequisite to production of Rule 1.280(b)(2) materials, and not that it should be brought out for the first time at a judicial hearing. The same conclusion is implied in Transamerica Insurance Co. v. Maze, 318 So. 2d 200, 201 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975):
The request to produce did not assign any reasons for the statements but merely sought them; while the rule clearly places the burden on the movants . to show a need for 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.
We conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law, and that the petitioners, if forced to produce items for which the respondents have not made the necessary Rule 1.280(b)(2) showing, would have no remedy on appeal. The petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the case remanded.
LETTS and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Varsenig Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…of these documents for an effective presentation of her case.” A bare assertion that plaintiff is in need is insufficient to permit this kind of discovery. Seaboard Airline Railroad Company v. Timmons, 61 So. 2d 426 (Fla.1952); Speer v. Desrosiers, 361 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Also, there is no indication that the plaintiff could not obtain equivalent discovery by other means without undue hardship, as the rule requires. Although the plaintiff urges the materials sought are not work product we cannot…
-
Demars v. Vill. OF Sandalwood Lakes Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 625 So. 2d 1219 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…INSTANCE OF THE AFFECTED PARTY? GUNTHER, J., and DOWNEY, JAMES C., Senior Judge, concur. . In another context this court has defined "showing” as "more than a bare assertion; it consists of specific explanations and reasons.” Speer v. Desrosiers, 361 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). However, that definition was given in interpreting Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2) and the requirement that the movant "show” that the party making a request for production of certain documents has need of them and c…
-
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co., 515 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…” U.S.C.P.’s request for production does not contain any of the allegations required by Rule 1.280(b)(2). Therefore, we grant certiorari and quash that part of the order requiring production of documents and other memoranda. See Speer v. Desrosiers, 361 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Scotchel Enterprises, Inc. v. Velez, 455 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Winn Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). [*1004] Petitioner also claims that the trial court departed from the essential re…
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
- Transamerica Ins. Co. v. Maze, 318 So. 2d 200 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)