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
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

October 23, 2015 by admin

Civil procedure — Discovery — Trial court did not depart from essential requirements of law in compelling production of information and documents where orders provided that any confidential information may be redacted

40 Fla. L.
Weekly D2392b
Top of Form

Civil
procedure — Discovery — Trial court did not depart from essential
requirements of law in compelling production of information and documents where
orders provided that any confidential information may be redacted — Petition
for writ of prohibition prohibiting judge from presiding in case denied

PEDRO J. GOMEZ, Petitioner, vs. JOSE E. GOMEZ AND MARTHA M. GOMEZ, et al.,
Respondents. 3rd District. Case No. 3D15-1749. L.T. Case No. 13-12830. Opinion
filed October 21, 2015. A Case of Original Jurisdiction — Prohibition and
Certiorari. Counsel: Kenzie N. Sadlak, for petitioner. Matthew Troccoli, for
respondents.

(Before SUAREZ, C.J., and LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.)

(SUAREZ, C.J.) Petitioner, Pedro J. Gomez, plaintiff below, seeks a Writ
of Certiorari to review and quash the trial court’s orders rendered on June 29,
2015 denying Petitioner’s “Amended Renewed Motion For Protective Order and Stay
of Orders Rendered February 27, 2014 and March 2, 2015”, and compelling
production of information and documents in response to discovery requested by
the Respondents, Jose E. Gomez and Martha M. Gomez, defendants below. We deny
the Petition for Certiorari, finding no departure from the essential
requirements of law and no irreparable harm resulting from the requirements of
the orders on appeal as the June 29th orders provided that the Petitioner “may
redact any confidential information pursuant to the March 2, 2015 Order and the
Florida Rule of Judicial Procedure 2.425.”

The Petitioner further seeks a Writ of Prohibition prohibiting Circuit
Court Judge Beatrice Butchko from presiding as a Judge in the underlying case
in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade
County, Florida, Case Number 2013-12830 CA 23. We deny this petition as well.

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Recent Posts

  • Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Appeal from order awarding attorney’s fees and costs and attorney’s fees for fees incurred in litigating amount of fees reversed in light of appellate court’s reversal of substantive portion of summary judgment on which awards were based and remand with instructions — Reversal is without prejudice to filing new appeal after trial court has concluded its labor
  • Insurance — Property — Insured’s action against insurer — Error to enter summary judgment in favor of insurer where there were factual issues as to insured’s compliance with post-loss obligations and any ensuing prejudice — Remand for further proceedings
  • Insurance — Homeowners — Assignee’s breach of contract action against insurer — Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Insurer was not entitled to summary judgment in its favor after paying post-lawsuit appraisal award within time limit required by the policy where appraisal process confirmed that insurer had wrongly denied paying assignee a specified amount of benefits under the policy — Payment of postsuit appraisal award did not render case moot — Remand for further proceedings on assignee’s claim for attorney’s fees and costs
  • Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Failure to state on the record the reasons for granting motion for summary judgment, as required by amended rule — Remand to allow court an opportunity to state reasons for its decision “with enough specificity to provide useful guidance to the parties and, if necessary, to allow for appellate review”
  • Insurance — Personal injury protection — Presuit demand letter — Presuit demand letter did not comply with statute where amount claimed to be due was not sufficiently precise — Although letter asked insurer to advise plaintiff if demand letter was defective in any way, nothing in language of section 627.736 requires an insurer to give notice to the insured or an assignee that a demand letter is defective

Blog Archives

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. Abbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2022 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982