GILBERT R. PANZER, M. D., PETITIONER,
v.
DEBRA JOHNSON, AS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF JENNIFER JOHNSON, AND DOCTORS HOSPITAL OF LAKE WORTH, AND FLORIDA PATIENT'S COMPENSATION FUND, 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.
Florida appellate court denied certiorari challenging discovery orders for expert witness materials, holding that work product protection does not shield such materials from discovery but requiring trial court to protect attorney mental impressions under Rule 1.280(b)(2).
Expert witness materials are subject to discovery even if prepared in anticipation of litigation, provided the trial court protects attorney mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and legal theories from disclosure.
[1] Expert witness materials prepared in anticipation of litigation are subject to discovery, but trial courts must protect attorney mental impressions, conclusions, opinions…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA physician petitioned for certiorari to contest discovery orders requiring production of materials held by an expert witness that the opposing party …
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 Trial Preparation Materials cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an emergency petition for common law certiorari contesting discovery orders by the trial court. The petition and response have been considered on the merits. The issue is whether certain materials in the hands of a particular expert witness are subject to discovery by respondent who contends said materials are necessary for adequate cross-examination of the witness. Petitioner contends the materials are “work product” under Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947), and immune from discovery.
We do not find that the trial court deviated from the essential requirements of law in ordering these documents made available in the event the witness is called at trial. Even though we find no error regarding discovery of the documents, we point out that the protective provisions of Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2) apply and that in ordering discovery of trial preparation materials, the trial court is still required to protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney concerning the litigation. Insofar as the order in question may fail to so protect, it is considered to be over-broad and so modified in this respect.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied except to the extent noted above.
DOWNEY, ANSTEAD and BERANEK, JJ., concur.