STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
H REHAB, INC. A/A/O PAULA A. VILLA, RESPONDENT
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.
The court held that a party is not required to produce surveillance video prior to deposing the subject of the video.
[1] A party is entitled to a writ of certiorari to quash an order compelling the production of surveillance video before the party has had an opportunity to depose the subjec…
[2] A trial court violates a clearly established principle of law by ordering the production of surveillance video prior to allowing the party who obtained the video to depos…
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 intelligenceState Farm petitioned for certiorari to review a circuit court decision affirming a trial court order compelling production of surveillance video befo…
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 Clearly Established Principle Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
The Petitioner, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”), petitions for Writ of Certiorari to review the decision of the circuit court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, sitting in its appellate capacity. That court’s decision affirmed the trial court’s order granting the *725Respondent’s, H Rehab Inc., a/a/o Paula A. Villa, Plaintiff below, motion to compel production of State Farm’s surveillance video prior to allowing State Farm the opportunity to depose the subject of the video. For the second time as between these two parties,1 we grant State Farm’s petition for certiorari, and quash only that part of the order below granting the Plaintiffs motion for production, as the circuit court violated a clearly established principle of law. See Dodson v. Persell, 390 So.2d 704, 708 (Fla.1980) (holding that the trial court’s discretion to allow discovery deposition before disclosure is “an appropriate middle road to ensure that all relevant evidence reaches the trier of fact in a fair and accurate fashion”).
We, therefore, grant the petition, quash only that part of the order under review that granted the Plaintiff/Respondent’s motion to compel production of the surveillance video/DVD,2 and remand with instructions that State Farm is not required to produce the surveillance video/DVD pri- or to taking the deposition of the Plaintiff and insured/Plaintiffs assignor, Paula A. Villa. The above issue was the only portion of the trial court’s order appealed to the Appellate Division of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit and the only issue raised in this second tier certiorari. We thus express no opinion as to the remainder of the order under review.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hankerson v. Wiley, 154 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
Authorities Cited
- Dodson v. Persell, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1980)
- La Mirage of Harbor Vill. Condo. Ass'n, Inc. v. Needham Roofing, Inc., 56 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)
- State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. H Rehab, Inc., 56 So. 3d 55 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011)