Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

October 30, 2015 by admin

Civil procedure — Discovery — Attorney-client privilege — Trial court departed from essential requirements of law by compelling party and party’s counsel to produce specific e-mail string between the two without affording evidentiary hearing

40 Fla. L. Weekly D2413b

Civil
procedure — Discovery — Attorney-client privilege — Trial court departed
from essential requirements of law by compelling party and party’s counsel to
produce specific e-mail string between the two without affording evidentiary
hearing to address claim of privilege and why crime-fraud exception precluded
use of that privilege, as respondent countered
 
MICHAEL BRANNON, PSY.D., and AMLONG & AMLONG, P.A., Petitioners, v.
DANIEL PALCU and STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondents. 4th District. Case No.
4D15-894. October 28, 2015. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit
Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Andrew L. Siegel,
Judge; L.T. Case No. 06-4892 CF10A. Counsel: William R. Amlong, Jennifer Daley
and Alison Churly-Davis, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners. Alan R. Soven of Law
Offices of Alan R. Soven, Miami, for respondent Daniel Palcu.
 
(PER CURIAM.) Petitioners, Dr. Michael Brannon and Amlong and Amlong, the
law firm that represents him, seek certiorari review of the trial court’s order
compelling them to produce a specific e-mail string between the two, which the
court set aside from discovery in a sealed envelope. Respondent, Daniel Palcu,
sought the information to demonstrate that Dr. Brannon perpetuated a fraud or
obstructed justice when he testified in respondent’s criminal case.
 
Petitioners argued to the trial court that the communication was protected
as an attorney-client communication. § 90.502, Fla. Stat. (2015). Respondent
countered that the crime-fraud exception precluded petitioners’ use of that
privilege. § 90.502(4)(a). The trial court conducted in camera review of
many documents, including the e-mail string, and ordered that it be produced.
Petitioners seek review, arguing that the trial court was required to conduct
an evidentiary hearing before ordering the production.
 
We grant the petition, quash the order, and direct the trial court to
conduct an evidentiary hearing. Merco Grp. of the Palm Beaches, Inc. v.
McGregor
, 162 So. 3d 49 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); BNP Paribas v. Wynne,
967 So. 2d 1065, 1068 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Am. Tobacco Co. v. State, 697
So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). As we explained in the above cited cases, the
failure to afford petitioners an evidentiary hearing to address that document
and argue why that exception should not apply is a departure from the essential
requirements of law. Merco Grp., 162 So. 2d at 51, BNP Paribas, 967
So. 2d at 1068; Am. Tobacco, 697 So. 2d at 1256-57.
Petition granted; Order quashed. (MAY, GERBER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.)
 
*
* *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982