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

February 21, 2014 by admin

First party bad faith — procedure for objecting to discovery on basis of scope of discovery versus substantive legal objections

39 Fla. L. Weekly D334b


Insurance — Bad faith — Discovery — Circuit court did not
depart from essential requirements of law by failing to conduct in-camera review
to address insurer’s objections to discovery requests based on scope of
discovery requested and on attorney-client privilege and work product doctrine
— General denial of insurer’s motion for protective order was equivalent to a
determination that all of the documents were “otherwise discoverable,” and at
that point, insurer’s claims of privilege and protection under work product
doctrine became mature — Insurer now has ability to file privilege log pointing
to specific documents which it claims are privileged

STATE FARM FLORIDA INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. ROBERT COBURN and MARTA
COBURN, Respondents. 2nd District. Case No. 2D13-2920. Opinion filed February
12, 2014. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Collier
County; Frederick R. Hardt, Judge. Counsel: Lee Craig, Matthew J. Lavisky, and
Ezequiel Lugo of Butler Pappas Weihmuller Katz Craig LLP, Tampa, for Petitioner.
George A. Vaka and Nancy A. Lauten of Vaka Law Group, Tampa, for Respondents.
(MORRIS, Judge.) State Farm Florida Insurance Company petitions for a writ of
certiorari directed at the circuit court’s order denying State Farm’s motion for
protective order. The underlying action is a first-party bad faith action
brought by State Farm’s insureds, Robert and Marta Coburn. State Farm sought a
protective order after the Coburns served various discovery requests on State
Farm. Because we do not believe that State Farm has demonstrated irreparable
harm under the facts of this case, we deny the petition. However, as explained
below, we do so without prejudice to State Farm’s having the opportunity to file
a privilege log with the circuit court before producing the requested discovery.
State Farm objected to the Coburns’ discovery requests on the basis of
overbreadth and burdensomeness (i.e., the scope of discovery), as well as on the
basis of attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. State Farm
argued in its petition that the circuit court departed from the essential
requirements of law by failing to conduct an in-camera review to address its
objections, but in their response, the Coburns argue that State Farm waived this
issue by failing to file a privilege log or ask for an in-camera review below.
We do not believe that the facts of this case establish a waiver by State
Farm. “ ‘[A] party is required to file a [privilege] log only if the information
is otherwise discoverable,’ ” Morton Plant Hosp. Ass’n, Inc. v. Shahbas,
960 So. 2d 820, 826 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (quoting Gosman v. Luzinski, 937
So. 2d 293, 295 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)), and until a circuit court rules on the
scope of discovery objection, “the party responding to the discovery does not
know what will fall into the category of discoverable documents,” Gosman,
937 So. 2d at 296. Thus, prior to a ruling on a scope of discovery objection,
“the obligation to file a privilege log does not arise.” Gosman, 937 So.
2d at 296.
The circuit court’s order denying State Farm’s motion for protective order
did not specifically address State Farm’s scope of discovery objections nor did
the circuit court find that State Farm had waived any of its assertions of
privilege or protection.1 We conclude that
the general denial of State Farm’s motion was equivalent to a determination that
all of the documents were “otherwise discoverable.” At that point, State Farm’s
claims of privilege and protection under the work product doctrine became
mature. See Allstate Indem. Co. v. Oser, 893 So. 2d 675, 677-78
(Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Because Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280 “does not
provide a time limit for filing the [privilege] log,” Oser, 893 So. 2d at
677, State Farm now has the ability to file a privilege log pointing to specific
documents which it claims are protected by attorney-client privilege and/or the
work product doctrine. Accordingly, our denial of the petition for writ of
certiorari is without prejudice to State Farm’s right to file a privilege log
before producing the requested discovery.
Denied. (WALLACE and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.)
__________________
1Further, nothing has been presented to
this court indicating that the Coburns ever sought to compel production of the
requested discovery on the basis that State Farm waived its assertions of
privilege and protection.

* * *

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • 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