ELIZABETH CARRERO AND LANIEL CARRERO, AS CO-PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF LENISE CARRERO, DECEASED, AND ESTATE OF LANIEL CARRERO, DECEASED, FOR THE USE AND BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE OF LENISE CARRERO, AND ESTATE OF LANIEL CARRERO, ELIZABETH CARRERO, AND LANIEL CARRERO, AS PARENTS OF LENISE CARRERO, DECEASED, AND LANIEL CARRERO, DECEASED, AND ELIZABETH CARRERO AND LANIEL CARRERO, INDIVIDUALLY, PETITIONERS,
v.
ENGLE HOMES, INC., SASSO AIR CONDITIONING, INC., THE TRANE COMPANY, A SUBSIDIARY OF AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION AND LISA WESTMORELAND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ROSEMARIE DESLAURIERS, 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.
Florida appellate court quashed a discovery order requiring disclosure of non-testifying expert witnesses, holding that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)(B) protects such identities absent exceptional circumstances.
A party need not disclose the identity of expert witnesses it does not intend to call at trial unless the discovering party demonstrates exceptional circumstances under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)(B).
[1] Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)(B) protects the identity of expert witnesses not intended to be called at trial from discovery absent exceptional circumstance…
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 intelligencePetitioners were required by a discovery order to disclose the identity of all experts retained in connection with a property damage case, regardless …
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 Civil Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PARIENTE, Judge.
The discovery order under review requires petitioners to disclose the identity of all experts without regard to whether or not the experts will be called as witnesses at trial. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4)(B) protects against the disclosure of non-testifying expert witnesses unless the party seeking the discovery demonstrates exceptional circumstances as set forth in the rule. None of the litigants allege exceptional circumstances.
Respondents Sasso and Engle Homes concede that the identities of expert witnesses consulted by petitioner, but who will not be called at trial, should not be disclosed in accordance with our decision in Myron By and Through Brock v. Doctors General, Ltd., 573 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). See also Lift Sys. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 636 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). Respondent Westmoreland suggests that this disclosure be permitted in order to facilitate early trial preparation. If a party unreasonably delays disclosing which experts it intends to call at trial in contravention of a trial court’s pretrial order, the trial court has ample authority to strike that party’s experts.
However, where a party has legitimately not yet decided which retained experts will be called at trial, disclosure should be protected in accordance with rule 1.280(b)(4)(B).
Accordingly we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order to the extent it permits disclosure of expert witnesses who will not be called at trial. Our decision is without prejudice to respondent obtaining disclosure of all non-expert witnesses who have inspected the residence.
STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Lift Sys., Inc. v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 636 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Rayna Myron v. Doctors Gen., Ltd., 573 So. 2d 34 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)