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

June 18, 2015 by admin

Civil procedure — Discovery — Trial court directed to rule on objections prior to requiring filing of privilege log

40 Fla. L. Weekly D1404b



Civil procedure — Discovery — Trial court directed to rule on objections prior to requiring filing of privilege log

EYEC TRUCKING, LLC., a Florida Corporation, and FRANCIS WARREN ROBERTS, II, an individual, Petitioners, v. MARIA SANTOS, as Personal Representative of the Estate of HECTOR G. GAMEZ-CARDENAS, Respondent. 4th District. Case No. 4D15-892. June 17, 2015. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Cynthia L. Cox, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312014CA000514. Counsel: Neal J. Gambler, II, E.T. Fernandez, III and Sorena S. Fallin of Fernandez Trial Lawyers, P.A., Jacksonville, for petitioners. Julie H. Littky-Rubin of Clark, Fountain, La Vista, Prather, Keen & Littky-Rubin, LLP, West Palm Beach, for respondent.
(PER CURIAM.) The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. See Gosman v. Luzinski, 937 So. 2d 293, 296 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Before a written objection to a request for production of documents is ruled upon, the documents are not ‘otherwise discoverable’ and thus the obligation to file a privilege log does not arise. Once the objection is ruled upon and the court determines what information is ‘otherwise discoverable,’ then the party must file a privilege log reciting which documents are privileged. If it is not done in that order, then the party faced with an unduly burdensome document request still has to obtain and review all the documents to determine which are privileged, even though the court may later limit the scope of the request if it was unduly burdensome.”); see also DLJ Mortg. Capital, Inc. v. Fox, 112 So. 3d 644, 646 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). The order requiring the preparation of a privilege log is quashed with respect to Requests for Production Nos. three and four. The trial court is directed to rule on the objections prior to requiring the filing of the privilege log. (WARNER, STEVENSON and FORST, JJ., concur.)

* * *

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