PIPER AIRCRAFT COMPANY, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
BERNICE COULTER (BRICKLES), ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DENNIS LEE COULTER AND RODDY COULTER, DECEASED, HERBERT L. VAUGHN, JR., AND ANN EGBERT, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ERNEST H. CORMIER, DECEASED, 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.
Piper Aircraft challenged a trial court discovery order requiring production of all investigative reports and expert opinions regarding similar accidents. The appellate court held the discovery order was overly broad because it failed to protect privileged material, and quashed the order while allowing targeted discovery of non-privileged items upon proper showing.
The discovery order was overly broad and improper because it made no provision for protection of privileged matter. However, respondents retain the right to discover specific items and compel production unless the petitioner objects and demonstrates the item is protected from discovery.
[1] A discovery order is overbroad if it fails to provide for the protection of privileged matter.
[2] A party may not be compelled to produce information that is protected by privilege.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“We believe that the order entered on the discovery request was over-broad in that it made no provision for the protection of any privileged matter.”
States the core holding that the discovery order was deficient because it failed to protect privileged information
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePiper Aircraft refused to disclose investigative reports and expert opinions relating to both the subject accident and other similar accidents in resp…
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 Work Product Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This matter is before us to review an order of the trial court requiring the petitioner to produce “all investigative reports and expert opinions” in its possession or control involving an accident similar to the one involved in this litigation. In the trial court the items sought to be produced included all “reports, memoranda, correspondence or other writings” relating to the other accident as well as similar information involving the subject accident. The petitioner had refused to disclose such information in answers to interrogatories on the basis that the request encompassed privileged material as well as discoverable material.
At the hearing before the trial court the respondents conceded a work product privilege as to information developed concerning the subject accident and withdrew its request for such information.
However, it was contended that the petitioner could claim no privilege as to information developed on other accidents.
The trial court agreed and entered the order described, supra. We believe that the order entered on the discovery request was over-broad in that it made no provision for the protection of any privileged matter. Jowanowitch v. Florida Power and Light Company, 381 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Also see Florida Power and Light Company v. Limeburner, 390 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is granted and the order of the trial court as described above is quashed. This ruling is made without prejudice to the respondents to discover the existence of any specific items and to have such items produced absent an objection and showing by the petitioner that such item is protected from discovery. See Jowanowitch and Limeburner, supra, and Surette v. Galiardo, 323 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
ANSTEAD, GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Surette v. Galiardo, 323 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975)
- Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Limeburner, 390 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Cipolloni v. Lewis, 390 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Jowanowitch v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 381 So. 2d 750 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)