Anticipation Of Litigation

113 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Diversified Indus., Inc. v. The Honorable James H. Meredith
  572 F.2d 596· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-09 ·cited 86×
• Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Varsenig Nakutis
  435 So. 2d 307· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-06-30 ·cited 75×
  Winn-Dixie Stores seeks to quash a discovery order requiring production of internally-generated accident reports from a slip-and-fall case, claiming the reports are protected work product. The appellate court grants the writ and quashes the discovery order, holding that work prod
• State v. Rabin
  495 So. 2d 257· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-09-30 ·cited 72×
  Florida's state attorney sought to compel defense attorney Rabin to produce documents and testimony regarding his conversation with Diaz, a witness in a murder case. The court held that while Diaz's statements were not protected by attorney-client privilege (as Diaz was not Rabin
• In re Subpoena addressed to Samuel W. Murphy, Jr. v. Pfizer Inc.
  560 F.2d 326· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-12 ·cited 72×
  The work product privilege extends to documents prepared in anticipation of terminated, unrelated litigation, and opinion work product enjoys nearly absolute immunity, discoverable only in rare circumstances. The government failed to establish a crime-fraud exception for the docu
• Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley
  462 So. 2d 1188· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-01-15 ·cited 44×
  This case addresses the discoverability of research documents in a toxic shock syndrome (TSS) product liability action. The court holds that P&G's in-house research qualifies as work product and is not discoverable absent a showing of need and inability to obtain substantial equi
• Alachua Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Zimmer USA, Inc.
  403 So. 2d 1087· Fla. 1st DCA· 1981-09-11 ·cited 40×
  The court held that work product prepared in anticipation of litigation retains its qualified immunity even after the initial litigation has terminated, and is protected from discovery unless the opposing party shows need and undue hardship.
• Snyder v. Value Rent-A-Car
  736 So. 2d 780· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-07-07 ·cited 38×
  The trial court erred in compelling production of the diary without an in-camera inspection to determine if it constitutes protected work product.
• Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Weeks
  696 So. 2d 855· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-04-25 ·cited 25×
  This case involves Wal-Mart's petition for a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court order compelling discovery. The appellate court partially granted and partially denied the petition, clarifying the discoverability of work product in Florida.
• Fla. Cypress Gardens, Inc. v. Murphy
  471 So. 2d 203· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-06-19 ·cited 25×
  Florida Cypress Gardens sought review of a discovery order compelling production of accident investigation photographs and files from its liability insurer's adjuster. The court held that such materials constitute protected work product prepared in anticipation of litigation and
• Intercontinental Props., Inc. v. Reynold Samy
  685 So. 2d 1035· Fla. 3d DCA· 1997-01-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that accident reports prepared in anticipation of litigation are protected by the work product doctrine and are discoverable only upon a showing of need and inability to obtain the substantial equivalent through other means.
• Hoover v. The United States Dep't OF THE Interior
  611 F.2d 1132· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-15 ·cited 22×
  The court held that an appraisal report prepared for purchase negotiations, not litigation, is not exempt from disclosure under FOIA Exemption 5 once negotiations have ended.
• Progressive Am. Ins. Co. v. Lanier
  800 So. 2d 689· Fla. 1st DCA· 2001-11-30 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by compelling production of certain documents from the insurer's claim file and face-sheet notes that were protected by attorney-client privilege or work product.
• Marshalls OF MA, Inc. v. Cira Minsal
  932 So. 2d 444· Fla. 3d DCA· 2006-05-24 ·cited 19×
  Marshalls sought a writ of certiorari to quash a trial court order compelling production of incident reports from 700 stores. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal held that the incident reports were protected by the work product privilege because they were prepared in antic
• Humana OF Fla., Inc. v. Evans
  519 So. 2d 1022· Fla. 5th DCA· 1987-12-31 ·cited 18×
  Humana Hospital seeks certiorari to quash an order compelling production of an investigative report about a deceased patient's hospitalization. The court holds that even though Florida law may make such reports discoverable, the trial court must first require the requesting party
• In re Application of Lance Eisenberg
  654 F.2d 1107· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-04 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a district court may deny pre-litigation discovery under Rule 27 based on in camera, ex parte evidence when balancing a litigant's need for information against significant governmental interests in grand jury secrecy and foreign relations.
• Fed. Express Corp. v. Cantway
  778 So. 2d 1052· Fla. 4th DCA· 2001-02-21 ·cited 17×
  The court held that accident reports prepared by a company's legal department in anticipation of litigation are protected by the work product privilege, and the trial court erred by ordering their production without requiring a showing of need and undue hardship.
• Debra A. and George Simon v. G.D. Searle & Co.
  816 F.2d 397· 8th Cir.· 1987-04-13 ·cited 17×
  Corporate risk management documents containing aggregate reserve information are discoverable, as they do not reveal protected attorney mental impressions or privileged communications to a degree that warrants protection. Rule 26(b)(2) does not limit discovery of such insurance-r
• Nationwide Ins. Co. OF Fla. v. Cookie Roberta Demmo
  57 So. 3d 982· Fla. 2d DCA· 2011-04-01 ·cited 16×
  Nationwide Insurance Company sought certiorari review of a trial court order compelling production of its claims notes, activity logs, and property loss documents in a first-party breach of contract action. The Florida District Court of Appeal quashed the discovery order, holding
• McRAE'S, Inc. v. Moreland
  765 So. 2d 196· Fla. 1st DCA· 2000-07-20 ·cited 16×
  McRae's sought certiorari review of a trial court order requiring disclosure of incident reports and employee witness statements from a "peeping tom" incident at its store. The court held that statements taken before law enforcement contact were work product protected under Flori
• Safecard Servs., Inc. v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n
  926 F.2d 1197· D.C. Cir.· 1991-03-01 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the denial of discovery and the application of the attorney work product and personal privacy exemptions, but remanded for further proceedings on the deliberative process exemption.
• Publix Super Mkts., Inc. v. Anderson
  92 So. 3d 922· Fla. 4th DCA· 2012-07-25 ·cited 14×
  Publix appealed a trial court order requiring it to produce incident reports and witness statements prepared after a customer's slip-and-fall, claiming work-product privilege. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted the writ and quashed the production order, holding that such
• Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Gonyea
  455 So. 2d 1342· Fla. 2d DCA· 1984-09-26 ·cited 14×
  Winn-Dixie sought a writ of certiorari to review a discovery order compelling production of recorded statements of eyewitnesses to a slip-and-fall incident. The court held that witness statements taken by an insurance adjuster constitute work product, and the opposing party faile
• Otto Julius Karch & Fla. Power & Light Co. v. MacKAY
  453 So. 2d 452· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-07-11 ·cited 14×
  Florida appellate court granted certiorari to quash discovery orders requiring production of an employee's accident statements to his employer, holding such statements constitute protected work product under Hickman v. Taylor absent unusual circumstances.
• Marine Petroleum Co. v. Champlin Petroleum Co.
  641 F.2d 984· D.C. Cir.· 1979-04-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying discovery from a non-testifying expert, as it had not shown it was impracticable to obtain the same facts or opinions through other means.
• Gilbertson v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.
  286 F.R.D. 636· S.D. Fla.· 2024-04-16 ·cited 13×
  The court denied Plaintiff's motion to compel witness statements and incident reports, finding them protected by the work product doctrine, but ordered disclosure of certain witness employment and contact information.
• The Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Miami-Dade Cmty. Coll. v. Ileana M. Chao and Jose M. Chao
  739 So. 2d 105· Fla. 3d DCA· 1999-05-19 ·cited 13×
  Miami-Dade Community College sought to quash a trial court order requiring disclosure of an incident report in a student's slip-and-fall negligence action. The court denied the petition, holding that although the report qualified as work product, the plaintiff established suffici
• Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. & Marion Asmus v. Signorelli
  681 So. 2d 720· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-04-26 ·cited 13×
  Fireman's Fund Insurance Company sought certiorari review of a discovery order requiring production of materials from its workers' compensation claims file in a plaintiff's intentional infliction of emotional distress action. The court held that certain progress notes and handwri
• Hodges v. United States Gov't
  768 F.2d 719· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the record was inadequate to determine privilege claims and remanded for further findings of fact.
• Waste Mgmt., Inc. v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  571 So. 2d 507· Fla. 2d DCA· 1990-10-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the second lawsuit (GKA II) was barred by res judicata because it arose from the same transaction as the first lawsuit (GKA I), and Grassy Knoll had a full opportunity to litigate the claims in the first action.
• Waste Mgmt. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
  544 So. 2d 1133· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-06-14 ·cited 12×
  Waste Management and Nichols Sanitation sought certiorari to review a trial court order compelling production of photographs, witness statements, and correspondence related to property damage. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court failed to ma
• Ruiz v. Cesar Brea, M.D.
  489 So. 2d 1136· Fla. 3d DCA· 1986-03-18 ·cited 12×
  In this medical malpractice discovery dispute, the Florida District Court of Appeal held that while the identity of retained expert witnesses is discoverable, informal consultations with experts who are not retained or specially employed for litigation are protected from discover
• Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. OF Pittsburgh Pa. v. Fla. Constr.
  720 So. 2d 535· Fla. 2d DCA· 1998-06-24 ·cited 11×
  The appellate court held that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by ordering the release of claim file documents without sufficient inquiry into whether they were protected by the work product doctrine.
• Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Limeburner
  390 So. 2d 133· Fla. 4th DCA· 1980-11-12 ·cited 11×
  Florida Power & Light sought certiorari review of a trial court discovery order requiring production of personal injury accident reports. The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted certiorari, quashing the order and holding that the accident reports constituted protected work pr
• Scotchel Enters., Inc. v. Velez
  455 So. 2d 1129· Fla. 4th DCA· 1984-09-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in denying a protective order because the statement was prepared in anticipation of litigation and the opposing party failed to demonstrate the required need and hardship for its discovery.
• Falco v. N. Shore Labs. Corp.
  866 So. 2d 1255· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-02-19 ·cited 9×
  A Florida appellate court granted Falco's petition for certiorari, quashing a trial court order that compelled discovery of work product videotapes. The court held that a party seeking to overcome work product protection must demonstrate need and inability to obtain the substanti
• Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Soler
  534 So. 2d 884· Fla. 3d DCA· 1988-12-06 ·cited 9×
  The Dade County School Board sought review of a trial court discovery order requiring production of witness statements and an incident report related to an accident involving student Roberto Soler. The appellate court partially granted certiorari, quashing the order for witness s
• Barfield v. Sch. Bd. OF Manatee Cnty.
  135 So. 3d 560· Fla. 2d DCA· 2014-04-11 ·cited 8×
  Michael Barfield sought declaratory relief and access to public records from the School Board of Manatee County, challenging redactions made to a litigation report under Florida's public records exemption for attorney work product. The court reversed the trial court's decision re
• Martin v. State
  936 So. 2d 1190· Fla. 1st DCA· 2006-08-30 ·cited 8×
  Jermaine Martin was convicted of drug possession after an FDLE lab report identifying seized substances as contraband was admitted at trial without the testimony of the chemist who performed the analysis. The appellate court reversed, holding that under Crawford v. Washington, th
• Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. OF Pittsburgh v. Murray Sheet Metal Co.
  967 F.2d 980· 4th Cir.· 1992-06-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court's denial of the motion to compel was premature and remanded for a detailed review of the documents under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3).
• Nelle S. Landrum v. Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc.
  525 So. 2d 994· Fla. 1st DCA· 1988-05-25 ·cited 8×
  An interlocutory discovery order compelling production of witness statements prepared for an attorney in anticipation of litigation is quashed because the party seeking discovery failed to show need and undue hardship.
• Ruhland v. Gibeault
  495 So. 2d 1243· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-10-23 ·cited 8×
  In this discovery dispute, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the attorney work product privilege protects documents from closed litigation files and does not expire merely because a case has concluded. The court quashed a trial court order compelling production of insu
• Raulerson v. Finney
  280 So. 2d 484· Fla. 3d DCA· 1973-07-17 ·cited 8×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal reviewed a trial court's discovery order requiring production of all witness statements without applying the proper legal standards. The court held that such blanket discovery orders violate the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which require
• Millard Mall Servs., Inc. v. Bolda
  155 So. 3d 1272· Fla. 4th DCA· 2015-02-11 ·cited 7×
  Millard Mall Services and Sunrise Mills appealed a trial court's discovery order compelling production of Quarterly Safety Committee Reports in a slip-and-fall negligence case. The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the reports were protected work product prepared in antic
• Sears v. Scott
  481 So. 2d 968· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-01-15 ·cited 7×
  Sears prevailed in obtaining a writ of certiorari to quash an order compelling production of incident reports prepared in anticipation of litigation, which are protected from discovery under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2).
• Heartland Express, Inc. v. Torres
  90 So. 3d 365· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-06-25 ·cited 6×
  Heartland Express sought certiorari review of a trial court order compelling disclosure of risk management investigation information during a negligence deposition. The First District Court of Appeal granted the petition in part, holding that information gathered in risk manageme
• Avatar Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mitchell
  314 So. 3d 640· Fla. 3d DCA· 2021-01-13 ·cited 5×
  Materials prepared by an insurer's adjuster in response to a property damage claim constitute work product protected from discovery under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(4), and a trial court errs in ordering their disclosure when coverage remains in dispute and the disc
• Neighborhood Health P'ship, Inc. v. Peter F. Merkle, M.D., P.A.
  8 So. 3d 1180· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-04-15 ·cited 5×
  An HMO sought to withhold documents from discovery under the work product privilege, claiming they were prepared in anticipation of litigation. The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of the protective order, holding that routine business doc
• Silhan v. Allstate Ins.
  236 F. Supp. 2d 1303· N.D. Fla.· 2002-09-30 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for intentional or negligent spoliation of evidence because they did not allege facts demonstrating an intent to disrupt litigation or a duty to preserve evidence.
• 1550 Brickell Assocs. v. Q.B.E. Ins.
  218 F.R.D. 372· S.D. Fla.· 2008-10-20 ·cited 4×
  The court held that QBE Insurance failed to establish work-product immunity or attorney-client privilege for documents prepared before August 31, 2007, as they were not sufficiently shown to be prepared in anticipation of litigation.
• US Fid. & Guar. v. Liberty Surplus Ins.
  630 F. Supp. 2d 1332· M.D. Fla.· 2007-10-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the inadvertent disclosure of privileged documents resulted in a waiver of the privilege due to the producing party's failure to take reasonable precautions, and that certain documents did not qualify as attorney work product.