MIMEDX GROUP, INC.
v.
FRASER JOHN PERRING
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.
A trial court must conduct an in camera review before overruling attorney-client privilege and work product protection claims for documents such as law firm reports retained by a corporate audit committee.
[1] In camera review is a prerequisite to overruling attorney-client privilege and work product protection objections in discovery disputes.
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 intelligenceMiMedx's audit committee retained an outside law firm to investigate and advise regarding claims of corporate misconduct, and the circuit court ordere…
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 In Camera Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. MiMedx Group, Inc. (MiMedx) seeks certiorari review of a circuit court order compelling it to produce a report authored by an outside law firm that MiMedx’s audit committee retained to investigate and advise regarding claims of corporate misconduct. The court departed from the essential requirements of law in overruling its attorney-client privilege and work product objections without first conducting in camera review. See Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Cimino, 279 So. 3d 200, 202-03 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); Old Holdings, Ltd. v. Taplin, Howard, Shaw & Miller, P.A., 584 So. 2d 1128, 1128-29 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). We grant this petition, quash the order, and remand for further proceedings. On remand, the court should carefully reconsider its analysis of Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1994), as that decision addressed multiple classifications of documents,
2
some of which the court ruled were protected from discovery.
Petition granted, order quashed and remanded for further proceedings. CONNER, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Akerman, LLP v. Cohen (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…ying assertions of attorney-client privilege. We consolidated the cases for review by the same panel. Because the January 2022 orders deny assertions of attorney-client privilege, certiorari review is appropriate. See Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Cimino, 279 So. 3d 200, 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“Certiorari is the appropriate vehicle to obtain review of orders requiring cat-out-of-the-bag disclosure of privileged documents.” (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Hicks, 162 So. 3d 1074, 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015))). U…
-
Akerman, LLP v. Cohen (Fla. 4th DCA 2022)…ying assertions of attorney-client privilege. We consolidated the cases for review by the same panel. Because the January 2022 orders deny assertions of attorney-client privilege, certiorari review is appropriate. See Am. Airlines, Inc. v. Cimino, 279 So. 3d 200, 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“Certiorari is the appropriate vehicle to obtain review of orders requiring cat-out-of-the-bag disclosure of privileged documents.” (quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Hicks, 162 So. 3d 1074, 1075 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015))). U…
Authorities Cited
- S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1994)
- OLD Holdings, Ltd. v. Taplin, Howard, Shaw & Miller, P.A., 584 So. 2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)