ROBERT A. STOK,
v.
TURNBERRY 12G, LLC, ETC., ET AL.,
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 quashed subpoena orders seeking third-party attorney-client privileged documents and medical records without prior privilege review, but allowed other subpoenaed materials to proceed.
A trial court must conduct a privilege review before ordering disclosure of documents claimed to be protected by attorney-client privilege or third-party privacy rights, and a confidentiality order alone is insufficient to overcome such claims.
[1] A trial court must conduct an in camera or other appropriate review to determine whether claimed attorney-client privilege or third-party privacy protections apply before…
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 intelligence“The failure to address whether a claimed privilege applies prior to ordering the disclosure of documents is a departure from the essential requirements of the law.”
Court citing Patrowicz v. Wolff and Snyder v. Value Rent-A-Car to establish the requirement for privilege review before disclosure orders.
The trial court issued an order allowing subpoenas directed to a law firm for third-party records claimed to be attorney-client privileged and subpoen…
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 Confidentiality Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant the petition and quash the parts of the order allowing subpoenas directed to a law firm seeking records of third parties that are claimed to be protected by the third parties’ attorney client privileges. We similarly quash the parts of the order allowing subpoenas seeking the medical records of third parties that are claimed to violate the third parties’ right to privacy.
The trial court order indicates that these objections were overcome simply by requiring a confidentiality order. Without the trial court establishing a method to review and determine which, if any, of these materials were so privileged, the order reflects a departure from the essential requirement of law. Patrowicz v. Wolff, 110 So. 3d 973, 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citing Snyder v. Value Rent-A-Car, 736 So. 2d 780, 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)) (“The failure to address whether a claimed privilege applies prior to ordering the disclosure of documents is a departure from the essential requirements of the law.”).
Otherwise, we deny the petition for certiorari. Subpoenas for materials other than the medical records of third parties and the records of the law firm may issue. This part of our order is without prejudice to the subpoenaed party or other party with a lawful claim of a privilege from filing objections and a privilege log. All other documents responsive to the subpoenas shall be produced. Granted in part and denied in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Aaraya Pub. Adjusting, LLC v. Crucial Claims, Inc. (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)…is relevant to a matter of common interest between two or more clients if the communication was made by any of them to a lawyer retained or consulted in common when offered in a civil action between the clients or their successors in interest. [*7] 110 So. 3d 973, 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) ("A party claiming that documents sought by an opposing party are protected by the attorneyclient privilege is entitled to have those documents reviewed in camera by the trial court prior to their disclosure." (citing Bennett…
Authorities Cited
- Snyder v. Value Rent-A-Car, 736 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Patrowicz v. Wolff, 110 So. 3d 973 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)