2016

FLORIDA HANDBOOK
ON CIVIL DISCOVERY
PRACTICE
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE ............................................................................................................ iii

Chapter 1: Available Weapons to Combat Discovery Abuse ............................... 1

In General .................................................................................... 1
Award of Expenses and Fees on Motion to Compel .................... 3
Exclusion of Expert Witness Opinions.......................................... 5
Remedies Under Fla. Stat. § 57.105 ............................................ 7
Sanctions for Failure to Obey Court Order ................................... 8
Required Due Process and Findings of Fact ................................ 9

Chapter 2: Remedies for Loss or Destruction of Evidence ............................... 13

Spoliation Claims ....................................................................... 13
Sanctions for First Party Spoliation ............................................ 14

Chapter 3: Remedies for Fraud on the Court .................................................... 18

Selected Cases on Fraud on the Court ...................................... 20

Chapter 4: Discovery of Work Product and Trade Secrets ............................... 32

Trade Secrets ............................................................................ 34
Incident Reports ......................................................................... 37
Claims Files ............................................................................... 37
Surveillance Video ..................................................................... 38

Chapter 5: Effect of a Motion for Protective Order on Pending Discovery ........ 39

Applicable Rule .......................................................................... 39
Depositions ................................................................................ 39
Other Forms of Discovery .......................................................... 41

Chapter 6: Proper Conduct of Depositions ....................................................... 42

Objections .................................................................................. 43
Examinations ............................................................................. 44
Proper Responses to Improper Conduct .................................... 45

Chapter 7: Compulsory Medical Examinations and Discovery of CME

Examiner Bias ................................................................................. 47
Issue 1 ....................................................................................... 49
Resolution .................................................................................. 50
Issue 2 ....................................................................................... 50
Resolution .................................................................................. 50

Chapter 8: Obtaining Psychological Records when Pain and Suffering

Are at Issue ..................................................................................... 57

Chapter 9: Electronic Discovery ........................................................................ 63

 Law, Policy, and Principles of Electronic Discovery ................... 70
Framework for the Trial Lawyer Facing E-Discovery.................. 72
Duties of Attorney and Client Regarding Preservation of ESI .... 76
Collection and Review of ESI ..................................................... 84
Ten Practical Steps for Handling Electronic Evidence ............... 85
“Self-Help” Discovery ................................................................. 88
Conferring with Opposing Counsel............................................. 91
Inspection of Client Computers and Equipment ......................... 91
Requesting Production and Making Production of ESI............... 94
Production of ESI Pursuant to Subpoena................................... 97
Discovery of Social Medial ESI .................................................. 98
Conclusion ............................................................................... 100
Appendix A: Comparison of Florida and Federal Rules
of E-Discovery .......................................................................... 102
Committee Notes to Florida’s 2012 e-Discovery Rules
Amendments ............................................................................ 113

Chapter 10: Discovery of Lawyer-Client Privileged Communications .............. 115

Privilege Logs .......................................................................... 116
Inadvertent Disclosure ............................................................. 117
Third Party Bad Faith Actions .................................................. 120
Examination Under Oath .......................................................... 120
Review of Privileged Documents for Deposition ...................... 121

Chapter 11: Expert Witness Discovery ............................................................ 122

Introduction .............................................................................. 122
Discussion ................................................................................ 124
Discovery of Non-Party Medical Records ................................. 129
Discovery From Expert Not Testifying at Trial ......................... 130
Significant Cases ..................................................................... 132

Sources and Authorities: ................................................................................. 138

Case Citations .......................................................................... 138
Fed. R. Civ. P. .......................................................................... 145
Fed. R. Evid.. ........................................................................... 145
Fla. R. Civ. P. .......................................................................... 145
Fla. R. Jud. Admin.................................................................... 146
Fla. R. Prof. Conduct................................................................ 147
Florida Statutes ........................................................................ 147
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Local Rules ... 148
Ethics Opinions ........................................................................ 148
Books ....................................................................................... 148
Law Journals ............................................................................ 148
Journals ................................................................................... 148
PREFACE

In 1994, the Trial Lawyers Section of The Florida Bar, the Conference of

Circuit Judges, and the Conference of County Court Judges formed a joint

committee to provide a forum for the exchange of ideas on how to improve the day-

to-day practice of law for trial lawyers and trial judges. At the committee’s first

meeting, it was the overwhelming consensus that “discovery abuse” should be the

top priority.

The original handbook and the later editions are the result of the continued

joint efforts of the Trial Lawyers Section, the Conference of Circuit Judges, and the

Conference of County Court Judges. It is intended to be a quick reference for

lawyers and judges on many recurring discovery problems. It does not profess to be

the dispositive legal authority on any particular issue. It is designed to help busy

lawyers and judges quickly access legal authority for the covered topics. The

ultimate objective is to help curtail perceived abuses in discovery so that the search

for truth is not thwarted by the discovery process itself. The reader still should do

his or her own research, to include a review of local administrative orders and rules.

The first edition of this handbook was prepared in the fall of 1995. This 2016

(fifteenth) edition updates the handbook through December 2015.

iii
 CHAPTER ONE

AVAILABLE WEAPONS TO COMBAT DISCOVERY ABUSE

IN GENERAL:

Full and fair discovery is essential to the truth-finding function of our justice system,

and parties and non-parties alike must comply not only with the technical provisions of the

discovery rules, but also with the purpose and spirit of those rules.1 The search for truth

and justice as our court system and constitution demand can be accomplished only when

all relevant facts are before the judicial tribunal. Those relevant facts should be the

determining factor rather than gamesmanship, surprise or superior trial tactics.2

Courts should not countenance or tolerate actions during litigation that are not

forthright and that are designed to delay and obfuscate the discovery process.3

FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.380:

The language of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380 applies to all discovery: depositions,

admissions, responses to requests to produce, etc. “If a deponent fails to answer a question

propounded or submitted under rule 1.310 or 1.320, or a corporation or other entity fails to
TP
PT

make a designation under rule 1.310(b)(6) or 1.320(a), or a party fails to answer an

interrogatory submitted under rule 1.340, or if a party in response to a request for inspection

submitted under rule 1.350 fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested or

fails to permit inspection as requested, or if a party in response to a request for examination

of a person submitted under rule 1.360(a) objects to the examination, fails to respond that

the examination will be permitted as requested, or fails to submit to or to produce a person

1
Bainter v. League of Women Voters of Fla., 150 So. 3d 1115, 1118 (Fla. 2014).
2
Id, at 1133.
3
Id, at 1118.

1
in that party’s custody or legal control for examination, the discovering party may move for TP

an order compelling an answer, or a designation or an order compelling inspection, or an

order compelling an examination in accordance with the request.” The losing party shall be

required to pay “reasonable expenses incurred,” including attorneys’ fees, in obtaining an

order compelling discovery or successfully opposing the motion.4

Upon proper showing, the full spectrum of sanctions may be imposed for failure to
T T

comply with the order.5 The rule sets out possible alternative sanctions: a d o p t i n g as
TP
TP

established facts the matters which the recalcitrant party refused to address or produce;
TP

prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or TP

defenses;6 prohibiting the introduction of certain evidence;7 striking pleadings, which could

result in a dismissal of the action; the entry of a default judgment, including an order for

liquidated damages;8 contempt of court; and the assessment of reasonable expenses or

attorney’s fees.9 The courts have crafted a few additional possibilities: fines;10 granting a

new trial;11 and, in the case of lost or destroyed evidence, creation of an evidentiary

4
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(a)(4).
5
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(b).
6
Steele v. Chapnick, 552 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (reversing dismissal because plaintiff substantially complied with
defendant’s discovery request, but authorizing alternative sanctions of precluding evidence on issues when plaintiff failed to reply to
discovery demands, entering findings of fact adverse to plaintiff on those same issues, or imposing fines and fees).
7
Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981) (trial court may exclude testimony of witness whose name had not
been disclosed in accordance with pretrial order).
8
DYC Fishing, Ltd. v. Martinez, 994 So. 2d 461, 462 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (reversing trial court’s entry of default final judgment
awarding unliquidated damages to the plaintiff and stating that in Florida, default judgments only entitle the plaintiff to liquidated
damages). Bertrand v. Belhomme, 892 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
9
Rule 1.380(b)(2)(A)-(E) and (d). See Blackford v. Florida Power & Light Co., 681 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (reversing
summary judgment as sanction for failure to answer interrogatories, but authorizing attorneys’ fees and costs); United Services
Automobile Association v. Strasser, 492 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) (affirming attorneys’ fees and costs as sanctions for
consistently tardy discovery responses, but reversing default).
10
Evangelos v. Dachiel 553 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ($500 sanction for failure to comply with discovery order, but
default reversed); Steele, 552 So. 2d 209 (imposition of fine and/or attorneys’ fees for failure to produce is possible sanction). The
imposition of a fine for discovery violations requires a finding of contempt. Hoffman v. Hoffman, 718 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA
1998). Channel Components, Inc. v. America II Electronics, Inc., 915 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005) (ordering over $79,000 as a
sanction for violation of certain discovery orders does not constitute abuse of discretion).
11
Binger, 401 So. 2d 1310 (intentional nondisclosure of witness, combined with surprise, disruption, and prejudice, warranted
new trial); Nordyne, Inc. v. Florida Mobile Home Supply, Inc., 625 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993) (new trial on punitive damages
and attorneys’ fees as sanctions for withholding documents that were harmful to manufacturer’s case but were within scope of

2
 inference12 or a rebuttable presumption.13 The court may rely on its inherent authority
T

to impose drastic sanctions when a discovery-related fraud has been perpetrated on the

court.14

AWARD OF EXPENSES AND FEES ON MOTION TO COMPEL :

U U

A motion under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(a)(2) is the most widely used vehicle for

seeking sanctions as a result of discovery abuses. Subsection (4) provides:

Award of Expenses of Motion. If the motion is granted

and after opportunity for hearing, the court shall require
the party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the
motion or the party or counsel advising the conduct to
pay to the moving party the reasonable expenses
incurred in obtaining the order that may include
attorneys’ fees, unless the court finds that the movant
failed to certify in the motion that a good faith effort was
made to obtain the discovery without court action, that
the opposition to the motion was justified, or that other
circumstances make an award of expenses unjust. If
the motion is denied and after opportunity for hearing,
the court shall require the moving party to pay to the
party or deponent who opposed the motion the
reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the motion
that may include attorneys’ fees, unless the court finds
that the making of the motion was substantially justified
or that other circumstances make an award of
expenses unjust. If the motion is granted in part and
denied in part, the court may apportion the reasonable
expenses incurred as a result of making the motion
among the parties and persons. (emphasis added).

discovery request); Smith v. University Medical Center, Inc., 559 So. 2d 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990) (plaintiff entitled to new trial
because defendant failed to produce map that was requested repeatedly).
12
Federal Insurance Co. v. Allister Manufacturing Co., 622 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (manufacturer entitled to inference
that evidence, inadvertently lost by plaintiff’s expert, was not defective).
13
Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Valcin, 507 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1987) (rebuttable presumption of negligence exists if
patient demonstrates that absence of hospital records hinders patient’s ability to establish prima facie case); Amlan, Inc. v. Detroit
Diesel Corp., 651 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (destruction or unexplained absence of evidence may result in permissible shifting
of burden of proof).
14
Tramel v. Bass, 672 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (affirming default against sheriff for intentionally omitting portion of videotape
of automobile pursuit).

3
 As set forth in the Rule, it is required that the court shall award expenses unless the

court finds the opposition was justified or an award would be unjust. The trial court should

in every case, therefore, award expenses which may include attorney fees where there is

no justified opposition, as it would seem that the absence of a justifiable position should,

“by definition,” render a sanction just. The party against whom the motion is filed is

protected in that the Rule provides that the moving party shall pay the opposing party’s

expenses if the motion is denied. If the court finds that the motion was substantially

justified, then it can award expenses against the non-moving party.

The Rule contemplates that the court should award expenses in the majority of

cases. The courts should take a consistent hard line to ensure compliance with the Rule.

Counsel should be forced to work together in good faith to avoid the need for motion

practice.

Generally, where a party fails to respond to discovery and does not give sound
TP PT

reason for its failure to do so, sanctions should be imposed.15 For purposes of assessing
TP
TP

failure to make discovery, an evasive or incomplete answer must be treated as a failure to

answer.16 The punishment should fit the fault.17 Trial courts are regularly sustained on

awards of attorney fees for discovery abuse.18 The same holds for award of costs

and expenses.19

15
Ford Motor Co. v. Garrison, 415 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
16
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(a)(3).
17
Eastern Airlines. Inc. v. Dixon, 310 So. 2d 336 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
18
First & Mid-South Advisorv Co. v. Alexander/Davis Properties. Inc., 400 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); St. Petersburg
Sheraton Corp. v. Stuart, 242 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970).
19
Summit Chase Condominium Ass’n Inc. v. Protean Investors. Inc., 421 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Rankin v. Rankin, 284
So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973); Goldstein v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 118 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960).

4
 Failure to make a good faith effort to obtain the discovery without court action, and to

so certify in the motion to compel, will be fatal to obtaining relief under subsection (4) of the

rule.

Expenses, including fees, can be awarded without a finding of bad faith or willful TP

conduct.20 The only requirement under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380 is that the motion to
TP

compel be granted and that opposition was not justified. The party to be sanctioned is

entitled to a hearing before the sanction is imposed.21

EXCLUSION OF EXPERT WITNESSES AND/OR THEIR OPINIONS : U

A recurring problem in trial practice is late disclosure of expert witnesses and/or their

opinions. These issues should be anticipated by counsel or by the court and specifically

addressed at pretrial conference and in case management and pretrial orders. An orderly

trial is most likely to occur when the judge enforces discovery and pretrial orders strictly and

requires each party to make full and proper disclosure before trial. The Fourth District

Court of Appeal in Central Square Tarragon LLC v. Great Divide Insurance Company,22

reiterated the need to “strictly enforce” provisions of pretrial stipulations. This prevents last

minute gamesmanship, and makes disruption of the trial and error on appeal less likely.

Generally, last-minute additions of witnesses and substantial changes to testimony

should not be admissible at trial. Failure to exclude such testimony prejudices the

opposing party and constitutes reversible error.23 A party who fails to disclose a substantial

reversal in an expert’s opinion does so at his peril.24

20
Where the attorney, and not the client, is responsible for noncompliance with a discovery order, a different set of factors must be
applied in determining sanctions. Sonson v. Hearn, 17 So. 3d 745 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
21
Burt v. S.P. Healthcare Holdings, LLC (citation pending).
22
82 So. 3d 911, 914 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), rev. denied (Fla. 2012) (admonishing defense counsel for engaging in “gamesmanship”
by failing to honor the pretrial stipulation).
23
Belmont v. North Broward Hospital District, 727 So. 2d 992, 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Garcia v. Emerson Electric Co., 677 So. 2d
20 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996); Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Clark, 676 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Keller Industries v. Volk, 657 So. 2d

5
 A claimed violation of the pre-trial order or other discovery violation regarding any

witness, including experts, is subject to the Binger v King Pest Control25 test before a trial

court can consider exclusion or other remedy.

The trial court should scrutinize a claim of newly discovered evidence with some

suspicion to determine if it is just a pretext for an ambush on the other party. Otherwise,

the trial becomes a free-for-all, and the discovery and pretrial deadlines become

meaningless. As the Fourth district said in Office Depot, “[a] party can hardly prepare for

an opinion that it doesn’t know about, much less one that is a complete reversal of the

opinion it has been provided.”26

As with other discovery violations, the sanction must fit the offense. Striking the

entire testimony of an expert witness is the most drastic remedy available.27

Under many circumstances, barring the expert from testifying will be too harsh.28 In

cases where an expert claims to have a new opinion, for example, it is probably best to bar

the new opinion rather than the expert’s entire testimony.29

When an expert is the only witness a party has to establish a key element in the

case, courts should be particularly hesitant to strike the expert’s testimony.30 The same

rule applies to an expert who could offer key rebuttal evidence.31 Finally, where a plaintiff’s

1200 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Grau v. Branham, 626 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310
(Fla. 1981); Office Depot v. Miller, 584 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Florida Marine Enterprises v. Bailey, 632 So. 2d 649 (Fla.
4th DCA 1994).
24 th
Gouveia v. F. Leigh Phillips, M.D., 823 So. 2d 215, 222 (Fla. 4 DCA 2002).
25
401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla. 1981).
26
Office Depot, at 590
27 th
Lobue v. Travelers Insurance Company, 388 So. 2d 1349, 1351 (Fla. 4 DCA 1980).
28
Id.; see also Jean v. Theodorsen, 736 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Kaye v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 985 So. 2d 675
(Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (striking a witness for violation of discovery orders is a drastic remedy which should be utilized only under the
most compelling circumstances).
29
Keller Industries, supra, at 1203.
30
Keller Industries; Lobue.
31 th
Griefer v. DiPietro, 708 So. 2d 666, 672 (Fla. 4 DCA 1998).

6
expert has already testified to new opinions, it is proper to allow the defense expert to give

new opinions in order to respond.32

Discovery disputes can sometimes arise over the role of experts retained by a party.

In Carrero v. Engle Homes, Inc.,33 a trial court ordered disclosure of the names of experts a

party had consulted for trial. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed. In doing so, it

followed the well-settled rule that the names of consulting experts need not be disclosed.34

The court held, however, that a trial court has “ample authority” to strike experts if a party

unreasonably delays disclosing the names of trial (as opposed to consulting) experts.35

REMEDIES UNDER FLA. STAT. § 57.105 :

U U

Fla. Stat. § 57.105 authorizes courts to award sanctions against parties who

raised claims and defenses not supported by material facts.36

§ 57.105 can be used in the discovery arena also. § 57.105(2) specifically provides
TP

that expenses, including fees and other losses, may be awarded for the assertion of or

response to any discovery demand that is considered by the court to have been taken

primarily for the purpose of unreasonably delay. § 57.105(6) Provides that the provisions of

§ 57.105 are supplemental to other sanctions or remedies that are available under law or

under court rules.

It is sanctionable to first object to a discovery request and, after the objections are

overruled, respond that no such documents exist. Such conduct has been found to

constitute discovery abuse and improper delaying tactics.37

32 th
Gonzalez v. Largen, 790 So. 2d 497, 500 (Fla 5 DCA 2001). See also Midtown Enterprises, Inc. v. Local Contractors, Inc., 785
So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (same ruling where lay rather than expert testimony involved).
33
667 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)..
34
Carrero at 1012.
35
Id.
36
Previously, a fee award was only permissible when there was no justifiable issue regarding claims and defenses. Fee awards
were relatively rare under this high standard.

7
 Sanctions have been awarded when a party filed a motion to dismiss that was

unsupported by the facts and the law, and the same party continually objected to discovery

requests, the subject of which was directed to the issues raised in the motion to dismiss.38

SANCTIONS FOR FAILURE TO OBEY COURT ORDER : U

If a party o r i t s d e s i g n a t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e fails to obey a prior order

to provide or permit discovery, the court in which the action is pending may make any of

the orders set forth under the Rules. As an example, not a limitation, Fla. R. Civ. P.

1.380(b)(2) lays out specifically permissible sanction orders including:

A. An order that the matters regarding which the

questions were asked or any other designated facts,
shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the
action in accordance with the claim of the party
obtaining the order.

B. An order refusing to allow the disobedient party

to support or oppose designated claims or defenses,
or prohibiting that party from introducing designated
matters in evidence.

C. An order striking out pleadings or parts of

them or staying further proceedings until the order is
obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any
part of it, or rendering a judgment by default against the
disobedient party.

D. Instead of any of the foregoing orders or in

addition to them, an order treating as contempt of court
the failure to obey any orders except an order to submit
to an examination made pursuant to Rule 1.360(a)(1)(B)
or subdivision (a)(2) of this Rule.
E. When a party has failed to comply with an
order under Rule 1.360(a)(1)(B) requiring that party to
produce another for examination, the orders listed in
paragraphs (A), (B), and (C) of this subdivision, unless

37 th
See First Healthcare Corp. v. Hamilton, 740 So. 2d 1189, 1193 n. 2 (Fla. 4 DCA 1999), disapproved of on other grounds by Fla.
Convalescent Ctrs. V. Somberg, 840 So 2d 998 (Fla. 2003) (citing Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp., 626 So 2d 263, 264 n. 1 (Fla.
th
4 DCA 1993).
38 th
Pronman v. Styles, 163 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 4 DCA 2015).

8
 the party failing to comply shows the inability to produce
the person for examination.
Instead of any of the foregoing orders or in addition to them, the court shall

require the party failing to obey the order to pay the reasonable expenses caused by the

failure, which may include attorneys’ fees, unless the court finds that the failure was

justified or that other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.

Such sanctions may be imposed only where the failure to comply with the court’s
T T

order is attributable to the party. If the failure is that of another party or of a third person

whose conduct is not chargeable to the party, no such sanction may be imposed.39 For

example, it is an abuse of discretion to strike a party’s pleadings based on a nonparty’s

refusal to comply with discovery requests.40

For the trial court to be on solid footing it is wise to stay within the enumerated

orders set forth in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(b)(2). If the enumerated orders are utilized, it is

doubtful that they will be viewed as punitive and outside the discretion of the court. Due

process and factual findings do, however, remain essential, in ensuring the order will

withstand appellate scrutiny.

REQUIRED DUE PROCESS AND FINDINGS OF FACT : U

The trial court must hold a hearing and give the disobedient party the opportunity to
T

be heard. Therefore, it is reversible error to award sanctions before the hearing on the

motion to compel takes place.41 By the same token, striking a party’s pleadings before

the deadline for compliance with discovery requires reversal.42

39
Zanathy v. Beach Harbor Club Assoc., 343 So. 2d 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
40
Haverfield Corp. v. Franzen, 694 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
41
Joseph S. Arrigo Motor Co.. Inc. v. Lasserre, 678 So. 2d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (reversing an award of $250 in sanctions
where the award was entered before the motion hearing).
42
Stern v. Stein, 694 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).

9
 If the trial court dismisses an action or enters a default as a sanction for discovery
T T

violations, a finding that the violations were willful or deliberate must be made.43 If the

offending party is represented by counsel, detailed findings must be included in the order,

as delineated in Kozel v. Ostendorf.44 If the order does not contain such findings, it will be

reversed.45 Kozel findings are not required unless the recalcitrant party is represented by

counsel.46

It is reversible error to dismiss a case for discovery violations without first granting
T

the disobedient party’s request for an evidentiary hearing. The party should be given a

chance to explain the discovery violations.47

Important and fundamental aspects of discovery abuse and efforts to sanction or

correct it, are that the underlying court order (compelling a discovery response) or process

(e.g., a subpoena, whether issued by the court or an attorney “for the court”), must be clear

and unambiguous, properly issued, and properly served. A court can only enforce an order

compelling conduct (e.g., providing discovery or enjoining one to or not to do something)

when the order is clear, because otherwise, the concept of violating it (which requires a

specific intent to violate the order/process) becomes far too murky to meet due process

requirements.48 Further, issuance and service of the court order/process must be proper,

for otherwise, that paper is nothing more than an invitation, as only through properly issued

43
Rose v. Clinton, 575 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Zaccaria v. Russell, 700 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
44
629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993).
45
Zaccaria v. Russell, 700 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
46
Sukonik v. Wallack, No. 14-2197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015).
47
Medina v. Florida East Coast Rwy., 866 So. 2d 89 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), appeal after remand and remanded, 921 So. 2d 767
(2006).
48
See generally, Powerline Components, Inc. v. Mil-Spec Components, Inc., 720 So. 2d 546, 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Edlund v.
Seagull Townhomes Condominium Assoc., Inc., 928 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); American Pioneer Casualty Insurance
Co. v. Henrion, 523 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Tubero v. Ellis, 472 So. 2d 548, 550 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).

10
and served process does the court obtain jurisdiction over the person from whom action is

sought (and without jurisdiction there can be no “enforcement”).

Discovery sanctions should be “commensurate with the offense.”49 It has been T

held that the striking of pleadings for discovery misconduct is the most severe of penalties

and must be employed only in extreme circumstances.50 The Fourth District further found

in Fisher:

The striking of a party’s pleadings is justified only where

there is “’a deliberate and contumacious disregard of
the court’s authority.’” Barnett v. Barnett, 718 So. 2d
302, 304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (quoting Mercer, 443 So.
2d at 946). In assessing whether the striking of a
party’s pleadings is warranted, courts are to look to the
following factors:

1) whether the attorney’s disobedience was

willful, deliberate, or contumacious, rather than an
act of neglect or inexperience; 2) whether the
attorney has been previously sanctioned; 3)
whether the client was personally involved in the
act of disobedience; 4) whether the delay prejudiced
the opposing party through undue expense, loss of
evidence, or in some other fashion; 5) whether the
attorney offered reasonable justification for the
noncompliance; and 6) whether the delay created
significant problems of judicial administration.

Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817, 818 (Fla. 1993).

The emphasis should be on the prejudice suffered by
the opposing party. See Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d
492, 502 (Fla. 2004). After considering these factors, if
a sanction less severe than the striking of a party’s
pleadings is “a viable alternative,” then the trial court
should utilize such alternatives. Kozel, 629 So. 2d at
818. “The purpose of the Florida Rules of Civil
Procedure is to encourage the orderly movement of
litigation” and “[t]his purpose usually can be
accomplished by the imposition of a sanction that is less

49
Drakeford v. Barnett Bank of Tampa, 694 So. 2d 822, 824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Cape Cave Corporation v. Charlotte Asphalt. Inc.,
384 So. 2d 1300, 1301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), appeal after remand, 406 So. 2d 1234 (1981).
50
Fisher v. Prof’l. Adver. Dirs. Co., Inc., 955 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

11
 harsh than dismissal” or the striking of a party’s
pleadings. Id.51

The failure to make the required findings in an order requires reversal.52

In Ham v. Dunmire,53 the Florida Supreme Court held that participation of the
T
T

litigant in the misconduct is not required to justify the sanction of dismissal. Relying on

its prior decision in Kozel v. Ostendorf,54 the court held that the litigant’s participation,

while “extremely important,” is only one of several factors which must be weighed:

[A] litigant’s involvement in discovery violations or other

misconduct is not the exclusive factor but is just one of
the factors to be weighed in assessing whether
dismissal is the appropriate sanction. Indeed, the fact
that the Kozel Court articulated six factors to weigh in
the sanction determination, including but not limited to
the litigant’s misconduct, belies the conclusion that
litigant malfeasance is the exclusive and deciding factor.
The text of the Kozel decision does not indicate that
litigant involvement should have a totally preemptive
position over the other five factors, and such was not
this Court’s intent. Although extremely important, it
cannot be the sole factor if we are to properly administer
a smooth flowing system to resolve disputes.

However, the Court reversed the dismissal in the case before it, finding that the

attorney’s misconduct (and the prejudice to the opposing party) did not rise to the level

necessary to justify dismissal under the Kozel test.

51
Fisher, 955 So. 2d at 79-80.
52
See Bank One, N.A. v. Harrod, 873 So. 2d 519, 521 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (citing Fla. Nat’l Org. for Women v. State, 832 So. 2d
911, 914 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)); see also Carr v. Reese, 788 So. 2d 1067, 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (holding that trial court’s failure
to consider all of the factors as shown by final order requires reversal).
53
891 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 2004).
54
Cited supra

12
CHAPTER TWO

REMEDIES FOR LOSS OR DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE

Evidence can be lost or destroyed. It can be lost or destroyed by the defendant or

the plaintiff and the act of losing or destroying evidence can be negligent or intentional.

Evidence can be lost or destroyed before any claim involving the evidence is made or after

a lawsuit is pending. This issue is commonly referred to as spoliation, and an entire

handbook can be written concerning these issues.

SPOLIATION CLAIMS:

The essential elements of a spoliation cause of action are:

1. existence of a potential civil action;

2. a legal or contractual duty to preserve evidence which is relevant to the

potential civil action;

3. destruction of that evidence;

4. significant impairment in the ability to prove the lawsuit;

5. a causal relationship between the evidence destruction and the inability to

prove the lawsuit; and,

6. damages.1

The Florida Supreme Court clarified the application of spoliation law to parties and

nonparties. In Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,2 the Court held that the remedy for

spoliation against a first party defendant is not an independent cause of action for

spoliation. Rather, the remedy is imposition of discovery sanctions and a rebuttable

1
Hagopian v. Publix Supermarkets. Inc., 788 So. 2d 1088, 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also Sullivan v. Dry Lake Dairy, Inc., 898
So. 2d 174 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
2
908 So. 2d 342 (2005).

13
presumption of negligence for the underlying tort. The Court did not consider whether there

is a cause of action against a third party for spoliation of evidence. The Court also did not

consider whether a counterclaim against a plaintiff may be made for spoliation of evidence.

For purposes of spoliation, “evidence” does not include the injured part of a litigant’s

body. Thus a plaintiff who suffered a herniated disc was not obligated to forego surgery and

preserve the damaged disc for examination.3 The court suggested, however, that a

personal injury litigant might be guilt of spoliation if he or she had surgery while a request

for a defense medical examination was pending.

Worker’s compensation immunity does not bar an employee’s action against as

employer for spoliation.4 The issue is unrelated to worker’s compensation, because

spoliation is an independent cause of action. Furthermore, the employer’s spoliation might

harm the employee’s causes of action against third parties, rather than the employer itself.5

SANCTIONS FOR FIRST PARTY SPOLIATION:

The Court, in Martino, determined that the remedy against a first party defendant

for spoliation of evidence should be the Valcin presumption and sanctions, if found to be

necessary.6 To determine whether sanctions are warranted and if so, what sanction(s)

is appropriate, the court shall determine (1) whether the evidence existed at one time,

(2) whether the spoliator had a duty to preserve the evidence, and (3) whether the

evidence was critical to an opposing party being able to prove its prima facie case or a

defense.7

If a party destroyed relevant and material information (and that information is so

3
Vega v. CSCS International. N.V., 795 So. 2d 164, 167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
4
Townsend v. Conshor, 832 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
5
Id.
6
Martino, at 347. See, Public Health Trust v. Valcin, 507 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1987).
7 th
Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So. 2d 777 (Fla. 4 DCA 2006).

14
essential to the opponent’s defense that it cannot proceed) then striking of pleadings

may be warranted.8

While striking pleadings and/or dismissal with prejudice is considered a harsh

sanction, doing so is justified in some cases.

In Tramel v. Bass,9 the trial court struck a defendant’s answer and affirmative

defenses and entered a default judgment after finding that the defendant had altered

critical videotape evidence. The First District upheld the trial court’s action, stating:

The reasonableness of a sanction depends in part on the

willfulness or bad faith of the party. The accidental or negligent
destruction of evidence often justifies lesser sanctions directed
toward compensating the victims of evidence destruction. The
intentional destruction or alteration of evidence undermines the
integrity of the judicial process and, accordingly, may warrant
imposition of the most severe sanction of dismissal of a claim
or defense, the striking of pleadings, or entry of a default. Thus,
in the case of the intentional alteration of evidence, the most
severe sanctions are warranted as much for their deterrent
effect on others as for the chastisement of the wrongdoing
litigant.10

In Tramel, the egregious nature of the defendant’s misconduct justified the entry of a

default judgment. Note, however, that a default judgment can be entered without a

finding of fraud or willful misconduct.

If a plaintiff cannot proceed without certain evidence and the defendant fails

to preserve that evidence, a default judgment may be entered against the defendant

on that basis.11 A finding of bad faith is not imperative.12 Conversely, in cases where

evidence is destroyed unintentionally and the prejudice is not fatal to the other party,

8
New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., 559 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Sponco Manufacturinq, Inc. v. Alcover, 656 So. 2d
629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); rev. dismissed, 679 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 1996).
9 st
Tramel v. Bass, 672 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1 DCA 1996).
10
672 So. 2d at 84 (citations and footnotes omitted).
11
Sponco Manufacturing, supra.
12
Id.

15
lesser sanctions should usually be applied.13

In Figgie International, Inc. v. Alderman,14 the trial court entered a default

judgment against a defendant for numerous discovery violations, including destruction

of relevant documents. On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed. It

agreed with the trial court that defendant violated the discovery rules willfully and in

bad faith, and that the most severe sanction was justified.

As the Third District observed in Figgie International, severe sanctions are

justified when a party willfully fails to comply with discovery obligations. Therefore,

destruction of documents alone can trigger a default order as long as the destruction is

willful.

In Figgie International, however, there was more than document destruction

involved. The trial court also found the defendant presented false and evasive

testimony through its safety director and provided incomplete discovery responses.

That conduct provided additional support for the trial court’s decision to enter a default

judgment.

The Third District also upheld dismissal in Lent v. Baur Miller & Webner. P.A.15

In that case, the plaintiff and her counsel apparently tried to intimidate a critical witness to

prevent him from testifying. The plaintiff also refused to allow the witness’s deposition to be

taken though the court had entered an order compelling her to consent. The court’s opinion

explained that consent to the deposition was required under the applicable German law.16

Apparently, German law would have otherwise made the discussions between the plaintiff

and the witness privileged.

13 th
Aldrich v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc., 737 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 5 DCA 1999).
14
698 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).
15
710 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998).
16
Id. at 157.

16
 The Second District has held that a legal duty to preserve video recordings does

not arise until the injured party makes a written request for preservation of the recorded

information.17

Hernandez v. Pino,18 involved the unintentional misplacement of dental x-rays by

plaintiff’s counsel. The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate in that defense

counsel had given the x-rays to its expert (before they were misplaced) and was able to

defend the case. No willful conduct was found.19

17
Osmulski v. Oldsmar Fine Wine, Inc., 93 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012).
18
482 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986).
19
Aldrich v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories, Inc., supra.

17
CHAPTER THREE

REMEDIES FOR FRAUD ON THE COURT

A trial court has the inherent authority to dismiss an action as a sanction when a

party has perpetuated a fraud on the court. However, this power should be exercised

cautiously, sparingly, and only upon the most blatant showing of fraud, pretense, collusion,

or other similar wrong doing.1 Fraud on the court occurs where there is clear and

convincing evidence “that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable

scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability impartially to adjudicate a

matter by improperly influencing the trier or unfairly hampering the presentation of the

opposing party’s claim or defense.”2

Although a finding of fraud on the court generally has been premised on a proven

outright lie on a critical issue or the intentional destruction or alteration of determinative

evidence, whatever scheme or fraud a court finds must be supported by clear and

convincing evidence that goes to “the very core issue at trial.”3

A trial court’s decision on whether to dismiss a case for fraud on the court is

reviewed under a somewhat narrowed abuse of discretion standard, to take into account

that the dismissal must be established by clear and convincing evidence.4 For the trial

court to properly exercise its discretion, there must be an evidentiary basis to dismiss the

case. An evidentiary hearing is almost always necessary to provide clear and convincing

evidence to support dismissal for fraud, even where neither party requests the hearing.5 In

1
Granados v. Zehr, 979 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).
2
Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 46 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998).
3
E. I. Dupont DeNemours & Co. v. Sidran, 140 So. 3d 620, 623 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
4
Gautreaux v. Maya, 112 So. 3d 146, 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013).
5
Gilbert v. Eckerd Corp. of FL, Inc., 34 So. 3d 773(Fla. 4th DCA 2010).

18
 a recent case, the third district court of appeal remanded the case to the trial court for an

evidentiary hearing where the trial court had dismissed the case with prejudice based on

fraud on the court.6

6
Diaz v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 137 So. 3d 1195 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

19
 SELECTED CASES ON FRAUD ON THE COURT

In summary, the requisite fraud on the court for dismissal occurs only where it can be
demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion an
unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability to impartially
adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the
presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense. When reviewing a case for fraud, the
court should consider the proper mix of factors and carefully balance a policy favoring
adjudication on the merits with competing policies to maintain the integrity of the judicial
system. An order granting a dismissal or default for fraud on the court will almost always
require an evidentiary hearing and must include express written findings supported by the
evidence demonstrating that the trial court has carefully balanced the equities and
supporting the conclusion that the moving party has proven, clearly and convincingly, that
the non-moving party implemented a deliberate scheme calculated to subvert the judicial
process. The appellate court will review using an “abuse of discretion” standard narrowed
by the clear and convincing evidence requirement for fraud.
Misconduct that falls short of the rigors of this test, including inconsistency,
nondisclosure, poor recollection, dissemblance, and even lying, is insufficient to support a
dismissal for fraud, and potential harm must be managed through cross-examination. In
some cases, even where fraud is shown, the trial court may impose lesser sanctions than
dismissal when warranted.
Cases in the following chart show how the respective district courts of appeal
handle fraud on the court.

CASE RULING UPHELD? NOTES

First DCA
Wells Fargo Bank, Dismissal REVERSED Mortgage foreclosure case dismissed
N.A. v. Reeves, 92 for allegedly fraudulent allegations in
So. 3d 249 (Fla. 1st the complaint regarding ownership of
DCA 2012) the paper at issue; assertions in a
motion to dismiss the complaint do
not provide an evidentiary basis for
finding fraud upon the court.
Jesse v. Dismissal Affirmed Record disclosed that appellant
Commercial Diving intentionally falsified testimony on
Acad., 963 So. 2d material issues. No abuse of
308 (Fla. 1st DCA discretion with sanction of dismissal.
2007)

20
Johnson v. JNOV REVERSED Dental malpractice case in which
Swerdzewski, after Defendant moved for directed verdict
935 So.st
2d 57 verdict based on fraudulent answers to pretrial
(Fla. 1 DCA 2006) discovery that were uncovered during
cross-examination; court deferred ruling
until after verdict and granted JNOV for
fraud on court; REVERSED because
review of dismissal for fraud prior to
trial (abuse of discretion) is not
equivalent to standard of review for
JNOV; review is far less deferential to
trial judge once jury verdict is entered.
Hutchinson v. Dismissal Affirmed Failure to disclose past attack by dog
Plantation Bay and pre-existing symptoms rose to level
Apartments, LLC, of effort to stymie discovery on central
931 So. 2d 957 issue amounting to fraud.
(Fla.1st DCA 2006)
Distefano v. State Dismissal Affirmed Plaintiff gave false deposition testimony
Farm Mut. Auto. by not disclosing subsequent accident
Ins. Co., and prior treatment and symptoms that
846 So. 2d 572 were central to case; faulty memory not
(Fla. 1st DCA 2003) an excuse under these facts; this case
has been cited in later cases.
Baker v. Myers Dismissal Affirmed Trial judge found that plaintiff
Tractor Services, intentionally omitted prior knee injury
Inc., 765 So. 2d and treatment which was central to
149 (Fla. 1st DCA case; appellate court noted that court
2000) could have fashioned a lesser sanction,
but “while this court might have
imposed a lesser sanction, the question
in this case is close enough that we
cannot declare the lower court to have
abused its discretion.”
Second DCA
Pena v. Citizens Dismissal REVERSED Affidavits submitted by Plaintiffs in
Prop. Ins. Co., 88 in favor of opposition to summary judgment
So. 3d 965 (Fla. 2d fees and were false hampering the
DCA 2012) costs presentation of Defendant’s
sanction procedural defense; fraud was
proven, but dismissal with prejudice
too severe where liability was
admitted.

21
King v. Taylor, 3 Dismissal of Divorce support enforcement case in
So. 3d 405 (Fla. 2d Appeal which former husband filed appeal
DCA 2009) from lower court ruling but then sent
fraudulent correspondence to the entity
responsible for disbursing the military
retirement benefits and also supplied it
with phony court orders in an effort to
unburden him from requirements of
lower court’s order.
Ramey v. Haverty Dismissal Affirmed The court stated that the evidence
Furniture Cos. concerning Mr. Ramey's conduct
Inc.,993 So. 2d "demonstrated clearly and convincingly
1014 (Fla. 2d that the plaintiff sentiently set in motion
DCA 2008) some unconscionable scheme
calculated to interfere with the judicial
system's ability impartially to adjudicate
this matter by improperly influencing
the trier of fact or unfairly hampering
the presentation of the opposing
party's claim or defense." The court
further stated that "the injuries that
were lied about are the nexus of the
case." App ct found that The trial court
properly exercised its discretion in
imposing the severe sanction of
dismissal for the clearly established
severe misconduct of fraud on the
court.
Kubel v. San Dismissal REVERSED Plaintiff’s husband got report from
Marco treater with info inconsistent with wife’s
Floor & Wall, Inc., testimony and gave it to his lawyer;
967 So. 2d 1063 report by treating doctor was then
(Fla. 2d DCA changed at request of plaintiffs.
2007) Defendant failed to produce clear and
convincing evidence of fraud; issue
best managed on cross at trial.
Miller v. Nelms, Dismissal REVERSED Complaint was dismissed as sham
966 So. 2d 437 pleading; App ct found that trial court
(Fla. 2d DCA lacked evidentiary basis for dismissal.
2007)
Howard v. Risch, Dismissal REVERSED Trial judge dismissed for failure to
959 So. 2d 308 disclose criminal history and full
(Fla. 2d DCA medical history; app ct found that trial
2007) ct did not have evidence to support
findings of fact based on heightened
clear and convincing standard and no

22
 showing criminal record had anything
to do with issues in trial and medical
omissions involved minor incidents.
Myrick v. Direct Dismissal REVERSED Trial judge took no evidence at
General Ins. Co., dismissal hearing, so appellate court
932 So. 2d 392 had same cold record as the trial judge
(Fla. 2d DCA and found that finding of fraud was an
2006) abuse of discretion; stringent standard
for extreme sanction not met.
Laschke v. R. J. Dismissal REVERSED Plaintiff in tobacco case asked
Reynolds Tobacco oncologist to put in records that
Co., 872 So. 2d smoking caused her cancer then
344 denied doing so on deposition;
(Fla. 2d DCA dismissal too stringent, as this thwarted
2004) effort would not hamper defense.
Jacob v. Dismissal REVERSED Plaintiff stated under oath that she
Henderson, 840 could not do several things that
So. 2d 1167 surveillance video demonstrated that
(Fla. 2d DCA she was capable of doing; trial judge
2003) dismissed for fraud; DCA reviewed the
same surveillance tape and deposition
as trial judge, so less deference is
given; when degree of injury as
opposed to fact of injury is involved, it
is a credibility issue for jury and not a
calculated scheme to impede the
defense.
Morgan v. Dismissal Affirmed Plaintiff claimed no prior back
Campbell, 816 So. treatment when she had been treated
2d 251 16 times; at evidentiary hearing, judge
(Fla. 2d DCA weighed credibility of plaintiff
2002) (deference given); Plaintiff’s disclosure
of some treatment does not constitute
“truthful disclosure.”
Third DCA
Trial court based finding of fraud on still
digital photos from surveillance video.
Lerner v. Halegua,
Order REVERSED Because the underlying video was not
154 So. 3d 445
Striking and properly authenticated, there was not
(Fla. 3d DCA
Pleadings remanded competent clear and convincing
2014)
evidence of fraudulent litigation
conduct.
E.I. DuPont De REVERSED Trial court did not base findings of
Order
Nemours & Co. v. and fraud on the court on evidence of
Striking
Sidran, 140 So. 3d remanded record and findings were inconsistent
Pleadings
620 (Fla. 3d DCA for new trial with evidence.

23
2014)
REVERSED
Diaz v. Home
and
Depot USA, Inc., Trial court did not provide proper notice
remanded
137 So. 3d 1195 Dismissal and hold hearing from which to make
for
(Fla. 3d DCA requisite findings supporting dismissal.
evidentiary
2014)
hearing
Record demonstrates plaintiff
“sentiently set in motion some
unconscionable scheme calculated to
Faddis v. City of
interfere with the judicial system’s
Homestead, 121 Striking of
Affirmed ability impartially to adjudicate a matter
So. 3d 1134 (Fla. Pleadings
by improperly influencing the trier of
3d DCA 2013)
fact or unfairly hampering the
presentation of the opposing party’s
claim or defense.”
Trial court made specific factual
findings supported by clear and
convincing evidence that Defendants
attempted to defraud the court and
Affirmed as
Empire World conceal ownership interests by: (1)
to certain
Towers, LLC v. producing fabricated corporate
Striking of Defendants,
Cdr Créances, 89 documents; (2) committing perjury in
Pleadings REVERSED
So. 3d 1034 (Fla. affidavits and depositions; and (3)
as to one
3d DCA 2012) suborning the perjury of material
Defendant
witnesses and providing them with
scripts of lies to repeat under oath;
supported by overwhelming clear and
convincing evidence.
P.I. case alleging failure to provide
adequate security; answers in depo in
Suarez v. VACATED
P.I. case differed from testimony in
Benihana Nat’l of and
criminal case three years earlier;
Fla. Corp., 88 So. Dismissal REMANDED
record fails to show clearly and
3d 349 (Fla. 3d to Reinstate
convincingly a scheme to hide the
DCA 2012) Case
truth; contradictions do not “go to the
very heart” of claims in P.I. case.
Officers of plaintiff corporation passed
Sky Dev., Inc. v.
note to witness during depo and text
Vistaview Dev.,
message to witness during trial; ample
Inc., 41 So. 3d 918 Dismissal Affirmed
evidence for the trial court to conclude
(Fla. 3d DCA
unconscionable scheme was
2010)
underway.

24
 P.I. Plaintiff failed to disclose past back
problems; burden on moving party to
prove fraud, which almost always
Hair v. Morton, 36
requires evidentiary hearing;
So. 3d 766 (Fla. 3d Dismissal REVERSED
inconsistencies may bar some back
DCA 2010)
claims but impact on liability and
remaining claims best dealt with on
cross examination.
Premises liability case; Plaintiff
claimed lost wages from a company
she never worked for according to
Gilbert v. Eckerd
deposition testimony. Evidence on
Corp. of Fla,
employment was conflicting, so trial
Inc.,34 So. 3d 773 Dismissal REVERSED
judge should have held a hearing and
(Fla. 3d DCA
made findings to resolve
2010)
inconsistency; but if matter would not
meet summary judgment standards,
then it is not proper for dismissal.
Inconsistencies in sworn discovery
responses in P.I. case may have given
Laurore v. Miami rise to dismissal of some claims but
Auto. Retail,Inc., not entire case; failure to disclose pre-
Dismissal REVERSED
16 So. 3d 862 (Fla. existing disability due to mental stress
3d DCA 2009) may result in loss of some damage
claims but not liability issue and back
injury claims.
Ibarra v. Izaguirre, Dismissal REVERSED Discovery response did not reveal prior
985 So. 2d 1117 slip and fall in which there was no
(Fla. 3d DCA attorney and no case filed; could be
2008) misinterpretation not fraud.
Papadopoulos v. Dismissal Affirmed Plaintiff made material representations
Cruise Ventures, about medical and litigation history that
974 So. 2d 418 were established in the record.
(Fla. 3d DCA
2007)
Austin v. Liquid Dismissal Affirmed Judge’s order recited extensive
Distributors, Inc., discrepancies in discovery that go to
928 So. 2d 521 the heart of the claim and are so
(Fla. 3d DCA extensive that they belie the claim
2006) plaintiff was confused or forgot.
Medina v. Florida Dismissal REVERSED We reverse for a jury trial because it is
East Coast Ry. clear the alleged misconduct did not
L.L.C., 921 So. 2d rise to the level of egregiousness
767 (Fla. 3d DCA required to merit the extreme sanction
2006) of dismissal.

25
Canaveras v. Dismissal REVERSED Plaintiff informed opposing counsel of
Continental the prior incident and the treatment he
Group, received as a consequence early on
Ltd., 896 So. 2d and medical history stemming from
855 that incident was known and
(Fla. 3d DCA investigated by the defendants; fact
2005) that prior injury was not fully admitted
in deposition does not warrant
dismissal.
Rios v. Moore, Dismissal REVERSED Although plaintiff did not accurately
902 So. 2d 181 describe her injuries in a prior
(Fla. 3d DCA accident, inconsistencies did not rise to
2005) level of fraud.
Bertrand v. Dismissal REVERSED Plaintiff claimed defendant took
Belhomme, inconsistent position re ownership of
892 So. 2d 1150 funds in dispute in prior bankruptcy
(Fla. 3d DCA and divorce case; judge dismissed for
2005) fraud; DCA held that plaintiff will not be
denied day in court, there was no
concealment in this case;
inconsistencies can be used to
impeach.
Long v. Swofford, Dismissal Affirmed. P.I. Plaintiff lied about pre-existing
805 So. 2d 882 back injury; false or misleading
(Fla. 3d DCA statement given under oath concerning
2001) issues central to her case amounted to
fraud.
Metropolitan Dade Denial of REVERSED DCA: Plaintiff’s misrepresentations
County v. Motion to and case and omissions about her accident and
Martinsen, Dismiss dismissed medical history in interrogatories and
736 So. 2d 794 in deposition went to the heart of her
(Fla. 3d DCA claim and subverted the integrity of the
1999) action. The extensive nature of
plaintiff's history belie her contention
that she had forgotten about the
incidents, injuries and treatment; “[t]he
integrity of the civil litigation process
depends on truthful disclosure of
facts.”
Hanono v. Denial of REVERSED Plaintiff found guilty of perjury for
Murphy, Motion to and case testimony in the very case in which
723 So. 2d 892 Dismiss dismissed dismissal was sought; trial judge ruled
(Fla. 3d DCA that case should go before jury; DCA
1998) reversed because of fraudulent
attempts to subvert the process.
Young v. Curgil, Dismissal REVERSED Trial court inferred collusion on the
358 So. 2d 58 part of plaintiffs based on suspicious

26
(Fla. 3d DCA circumstances; matter debatable and
1978) the issue should have been
determined by the jury; dismissal
should be used cautiously and
sparingly and only upon blatant
showing of fraud, pretense, collusion.
Fourth DCA
Herman v. Dismissal AFFIRMED Party’s diary contradicted his
Intracoastal testimony and false testimony he
Cardiology Ctr., procured from another witness at
121 So. 3d 583 trial. Where repeated fabrications
(Fla. 4th DCA undermine the integrity of a party's
2013) entire case, the trial court has the
right and obligation to deter
fraudulent claims from proceeding in
court.
Chacha v. Transp. Dismissal REVERSED P.I. case in which Plaintiff allegedly
USA, Inc., 78 So. and concealed prior back problems from
3d 727 (Fla. 4th remanded to treating doctors and defendants; abuse
DCA 2012) make of discretion to dismiss an action
specific without express written findings of fact
findings
Bass v. City of Dismissal Affirmed Patient’s unexplained inconsistencies in
Pembroke Pines, discovery answers about prior medical
991 So. 2d 1008 problems and having been in a prior
(Fla. 4th DCA case (albeit a divorce) meant that
2008) reasonable minds could differ on the
remedy, so trial judge affirmed.
Sunex Intern Inc. Dismissal REVERSED Trial judge dismissed claim on Motion
v. Colson, 964 So. on to Strike as sham pleading but app ct
2d Motion to reversed on grounds that the fact that
780 (Fla. 4th DCA Strike trial ct perceived little chance of
2007) success on merits is not grounds for
dismissal as sham. Hearing on such a
motion is not to try issues but instead
to determine whether there are any
issues to try.
Gray v. Sunburst Dismissal Affirmed Judge’s order sets out proper standard
Sanitation Corp., and analysis; PCA.
932 So. 2d 439
th
(Fla. 4 DCA
2006)
Cherubino v. Dismissal REVERSED Legal malpractice case in which most
Fenstersheib and of the inconsistencies attributed to
Fox, P.A., 925 plaintiffs occurred in the underlying
So. 2d 1066 (Fla. automobile action; not clear and

27
 th
4 DCA 2006) convincing evidence of scheme to
defraud in the malpractice case.
Cross v. Pumpco, Dismissal REVERSED Plaintiff who failed to recall neck injury
Inc., 910 So. 2d from five years prior to accident argued
324, (Fla. 4th DCA that he did not intentionally withhold
2005) information from the defense, but
rather, was confused as to the date of
the prior accident and did not recall the
full extent of his injuries; that this was
not a scheme calculated to interfere
with ability to impartially adjudicate;
that extent of his injuries related to
present accident is a question for the
jury.
McKnight v. Dismissal Affirmed Extent of misrepresentation and
Evancheck, concealment of prior injuries set forth
907 So. 2d 699 in prison records justified dismissal.
(Fla. 4th DCA
2005)
Piunno v. R. F. Dismissal Affirmed Extent of misrepresentation and
Concrete Const., concealment of prior injuries relating to
Inc., 904 So. 2d same damages alleged in instant case
658 (Fla. 4th DCA justified dismissal.
2005)
Bob Montgomery Dismissal REVERSED Real estate broker's attachment of a
Real Estate v. forged and an altered document to
Djokic, 858 So. complaint did not warrant sanction of
2d dismissal in action against real estate
371 (Fla. 4th DCA agents for tortious interference with
2003) contractual relationships, where source
of additions to documents remained
open to speculation, and there was no
evidence that broker submitted
documents with intent to deceive.
Amato v. Dismissal REVERSED Court compared testimony to
Intindola, 854 So. surveillance video and dismissed for
2d 812 fraud; DCA reviewed same record and
(Fla 4th DCA REVERSED based on Jacob, supra.
2003)
Arzuman v. Saud, Dismissal REVERSED Contract action in which trial judge
843 So. 2d 950 dismissed due to conflicting testimony
(Fla. 4th DCA on ownership of a corporation; this
2003) testimony was not intended to deceive
but was the result of Arzuman's
ignorance of corporate structure.
Savino v. Florida Dismissal Affirmed Plaintiff in PI case shown to have lied
Drive In Theatre about pre-accident mental abilities;

28
Management, Inc., produced a false diploma for a college
697 So. 2d 1011 degree; and lied about not working
(Fla. 4th DCA post-accident; fraud permeated the
1997) case.
Fifth DCA
Rocka Fuerta Dismissal REVERSED Case plainly fails to present the type
Constr., Inc. v. of egregious misconduct or extreme
Southwick, Inc., circumstance to support dismissal
103 So. 3d 1022 with prejudice. Appellant's behavior
(Fla. 5th DCA is simply not fraud.
2013)
Gautreaux v. Dismissal REVERSED The facts of this case do not meet the
Maya, 112 So. 3d narrow, stringent standard required for
146 (Fla. 5th DCA dismissal for fraud on the court.
2013) Although Plaintiff showed a
"testimonial discrepancy," he failed to
show "a scheme calculated to evade or
stymie discovery of facts central to the
case.
Perrine v. Dismissal Affirmed Trial judge held two thorough hearings
Henderson, 85 So. and determined that Plaintiff made
3d 1210 (Fla. 5th numerous material misrepresentations
DCA 2012) regarding his medical history and
current injuries, which were core
issues in the case.
Bologna v. Dismissal REVERSED Dismissal in Plaintiff PI case (alleged
Schlanger, 995 fraud re lack of disclosure of prior
So. 2d 526 (Fla. treatment) reversed because there
5th DCA 2008) could have been confusion due to
broad questioning, plaintiff’s
interrogatory answers led the defense
to the truth, and the judge did not hold
an evidentiary hearing. Did not meet
Cox v. Burke test (see Cox case
below).
Villasenor v. Dismissal REVERSED Question of whether inconsistencies
Martinez, argued intentional fraudulent conduct,
991 So. 2d 433 forgetfulness, result of a limited
(Fla. 5th DCA command of the English language, or
2008) efforts to unlawfully live and work in
the country, trial court erred in
dismissing with prejudice without
evidentiary hearing.

29
Granados v. Zehr, Dismissal REVERSED Plaintiff in PI case misrepresented
979 So. 2d 1155 prior condition but revealed names of
(Fla. 5th DCA 2008 treating physicians who revealed true
problems so defense not hampered.
Saenz v. Patco Dismissal Affirmed Whether dismissal was an appropriate
Trans. Inc., sanction for concealment of prior
969 So. 2d 1145 medical issues presented a close
(Fla. 5th DCA question for DCA, but they affirmed the
2007) sanction as being in sound discretion
of trial judge.
Gehrmann v. City Dismissal REVERSED Discrepancies between testimony of PI
of Orlando, plaintiff and defense investigation not
962 So. 2d 1059 sufficiently tested at hearing to show
(Fla. 5th DCA requisite intent to defraud and that
2007) discrepancies were sufficient for
dismissal.
Brown v. Allstate Dismissal Affirmed Plaintiff in PI case knowingly and
Ins. Co., intentionally concealed his lack of
838 So. 2d 1264 employment at the time of the
(Fla. 5th DCA accident; misrepresentation was
2003) central to the issue of lost wages and
that issue was an integral part of his
claim.
Ruiz v. City of Dismissal REVERSED Except in the most extreme cases,
Orlando, where it appears that the process of
859 So. 2d 574 trial has itself been subverted, factual
(Fla. 5th DCA inconsistencies, even false statements
2003) are well managed through the use of
impeachment and traditional discovery
sanctions; record in this case does not
demonstrate clearly and convincingly a
knowing and unreasonable scheme to
interfere with the judicial system's
ability to impartially adjudicate the
claim.
Cox v. Burke,* Dismissal Affirmed “In this case, there is a good deal that
706 So. 2d 43 Burke and Gordon put forth as “fraud”
(Fla. 5th DCA that is either not fraud or is
1998) unproven. . . . Cox clearly gave many
false or misleading answers in sworn
*Cox case is discovery that either appear calculated
frequently cited as to evade or stymie discovery on issues
authority in cases central to her case. The integrity of the
involving civil litigation process depends on
dismissal for fraud truthful disclosure of facts. A system
on the court. that depends on an adversary's ability

30
 to uncover falsehoods is doomed to
failure, which is why this kind of
conduct must be discouraged in the
strongest possible way. Although Cox
insists on her constitutional right to
have her case heard, she can, by her
own conduct, forfeit that right. This is
an area where the trial court is and
should be vested with discretion to
fashion the apt remedy. While this
court might have imposed a lesser
sanction, the question in this case is
close enough that we cannot declare
the lower court to have abused its
discretion.”

31
CHAPTER FOUR

DISCOVERY OF WORK PRODUCT AND TRADE SECRETS

The work product privilege protects from discovery “documents and tangible things

otherwise discoverable” if a party prepared those items “in anticipation of litigation or for

trial.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(3). There is no requirement in this rule that for something to

be protected as work product, it must be an item ordered to be prepared by an attorney.1

Materials may qualify as work product even if no specific litigation was pending at the time

the materials were compiled. Even preliminary investigative materials are privileged if

compiled in response to some event which foreseeably could be made the basis of a

claim.2

The standard to be applied in the First, Second, Third and Fifth District Courts in

determining whether documents are protected by the work product doctrine, is whether

the document was prepared in response to some event which foreseeably could be

made the basis of a claim in the future.3 The Fourth District, for years, applied a slightly

stricter standard, finding that documents were not work product unless they were

prepared when the probability of litigation was substantial and imminent,4 or, they were

prepared after the claim had already accrued.5 However, the Court recently addressed

the issue again in the case of Millard Mall Servs. v. Bolda,6 and the stricter standard

was relegated to the dissenting opinion. See that case for a discussion of the work

1
See, e.g. Barnett Bank v. Dottie-G. Dev. Corp., 645 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Time Warner, Inc. v. Gadinsky, 639 So. 2d
176 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
2
Anchor Nat’l Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Smeltz, 546 So. 2d 760, 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
3
See Marshalls of Ma, Inc. v. Minsal, 932 So. 2d 444 (Fla. App. 3d Dist. 2006), and the cases cited therein.
4
Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bennett, 883 So. 2d 373, 374 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
5
Int’l House of Pancakes (IHOP) v. Robinson, 8 So. 3d 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
6
155 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

32
product privilege and the circumstances under which it has been applied in the various

appellate districts.

When a party asserts the work product privilege in response to a request for

production, the party need only assert in their response the objection and reason for the

objection. It is not required that the objecting party file with the objection an affidavit

documenting that the incident report was prepared in anticipation of litigation. If the

opposing party wants to pursue the request over the objection, they may move to compel

production. If the motion to compel challenges the status of the document as work product,

defendants must then show that the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation.7

Under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(3), a party may obtain discovery of an opposing

party’s “documents … prepared in anticipation of litigation … only upon a showing that the

party seeking discovery has need of the materials in the preparation of the case and is

unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other

means.” Therefore, the party requesting such privileged material has a considerable

burden to show that the party has both a significant need and an undue hardship in

obtaining a substantial equivalent.8 Need and undue hardship “must be demonstrated by

affidavit or sworn testimony.”9 Documents protected by the work product immunity must

not be lightly invaded, but only upon a particularized showing of need satisfying the criteria

set forth in Rule 1.280. If the moving party fails to show that the substantial equivalent of

the material cannot be obtained by other means the discovery will be denied.10

7
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350. See also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Weeks, 696 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
8
Metric Eng’g., Inc v.Small, 861 So. 2d 1248, 1250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); CSX Transp., Inc. v. Carpenter, 725 So. 2d 434,
435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
9
N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Button, 592 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
10
S. Bell Tel. & Tel Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377, 1385 (Fla. 1994).

33
 It should be noted that if attorney work product is expected or intended for use at
T

trial, it is subject to the rules of discovery. The Florida Supreme Court has held that the

attorney work product doctrine and work product privilege is specifically bounded and

limited to materials not intended for use as evidence or as an exhibit at trial, including

rebuttal.11

Trade Secrets:

A “trade secret” is defined in section 688.002(4), Florida Statutes, as:

Information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program,

device, method, technique or process that: (a) derives
independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being
generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by
proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value
from its disclosure or use; and (b) is the subject of efforts that are
reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.

Section 90.506, Florida Statutes provides:

A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent

other persons from disclosing a trade secret owned by that
person if the allowance of the privilege will not conceal fraud or
otherwise work injustice. When the court directs disclosure, it
shall take the protective measures that the interests of the holder
of the privilege, the interests of the parties, and the furtherance
of justice require.

Trade secrets are privileged under section 90.506, Florida Statutes, but the privilege

is not absolute. Freedom Newspapers, Inc., v. Egly, 507 So. 2d 1180, 1184 (Fla. 2d DCA

1987). Information constituting trade secrets can be obtained in discovery under certain in

certain circumstances. To determine if those circumstances exist, a trial court generally

must follow a three-step process:

(1) determine whether the requested production constitutes a trade

secret;

11
See, Northup v. Howard W. Acken, M.D., 865 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 2004).

34
 (2) if the requested production constitutes a trade secret, determine
whether there is a reasonable necessity for production; and

(3) if production is ordered, the trial court must set forth its findings.

Gen. Caulking Coating Co., Inc. v. J.D. Waterproofing, Inc., 958 So. 2d
507, 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007).

Trade secrets are defined in Florida’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act as:

[I]nformation, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program,

device, method, technique, or process that:

a) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not

being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by
proper means by other persons who can obtain economic value from
its disclosure or use; and

b) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances

to maintain its secrecy. § 688.002(4), Fla. Stat. (2015).

“When a party asserts the need for protection against disclosure of a trade secret,

the court must first determine whether, in fact, the disputed information is a trade secret

[which] usually requires the court to conduct an in camera review.” Summitbridge Nat’l

Invs. V. 1221 Palm Harbor, L.L.C.12 A trial court may also conduct an evidentiary hearing.

Bright House Networks, LLC v. Cassidy, 129 So. 3d 501, 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014). Such a

hearing may include expert testimony. Lovell Farms, Inc. v. Levy, 644 So. 2d 103, 105

(Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

If the materials are trade secrets, the court must then determine whether there is a

reasonable necessity for production. Gen. Caulking Coating Co., supra, at 509. Once a

party has demonstrated that the information sought is a trade secret, the burden shifts to

the party seeking discovery to demonstrate reasonable necessity for production. Scientific
12 th
67 So. 3d 448, 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); see also Westco, Inc. v. Scott Lewis’ Gardening & Trimming, 26 So. 3d 620, 622 (Fla. 4
DCA 2009) (holding that where a party claims a document is privileged and the trial court fails to conduct an in camera review or
balancing test, the trial court has departed from the essential requirements of the law).

35
Games, Inc. v. Dittler Bros., Inc., 586 So. 2d 1128, 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (citing

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Cooey, 359 So. 2d 1200, 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978)). This

requires a trial court to decide whether the need for producing the documents outweighs

the interest in maintaining their confidentiality. See Gen. Caulking Coating Co., supra at

509.

If the trial court ultimately decides to order production of trade secrets, it must set

forth findings on these points. Gen. Caulking Coating Co., supra at 509 (“Because the

order under review makes no specific findings as to why it deemed the requested

information not to be protected by the trade secret privilege we find that ‘it departs from the

essential requirements of the law for which no adequate remedy may be afforded to

petitioners on final review.’” (quoting Arthur Finnieston, Inc. v. Pratt, 673 So. 2d 560, 562

(Fla. 3d DCA 1996))).

Further, if disclosure is ordered, the trial court should take measures to limit any

harm caused by the production. See § 90.506 (“When the court directs disclosure, it shall

take the protective measures that the interests of the holder of the privilege, the interests of

the parties, and the furtherance of justice require.”). Examples of measures taken by courts

to protect trade secrets include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) specifying

individuals that may have access to the materials for the limited purposes of assisting

counsel in the litigation; (b) requiring that the designated confidential materials and any

copies be returned or destroyed at the end of the litigation; (c) allowing the disclosure of the

trade secret to only counsel and not to the clients; and (d) requiring all attorneys who

request access to confidential information to first sign an attached agreement and be bound

by its restrictions. See Capital One, N.A. v. Forbes, 34 So. 3d 209, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA

36
2010); Cordis Corp. v. O’Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163, 1165 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008);

Bestechnologies, Inc. v. Trident Envtl. Sys., Inc., 681 So. 2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA

1996).

Incident Reports:

Incident reports have generally been considered not discoverable as falling within

the work product privilege because they are typically prepared solely for litigation and have

no other business purpose.13 Incident reports may be prepared for a purpose other than in

anticipation of litigation, and when this is so the reports are not work product. For example,

reports prepared solely for personnel reasons, such as to decide whether an employee

should be disciplined, are not work product.14 However, even if an incident report is

prepared for one reason not in anticipation of litigation, it will still be protected as work

product if it was also prepared for litigation purposes.15

Claims Files:

A party is not entitled to discovery related to the claim file or the insurer’s business

practices regarding the handling of claims until the obligation to provide coverage and

damages has been determined.16

However, the claims file may be discoverable when an insurer is sued for bad faith

after any coverage dispute has been settled.17

13
Winn-Dixie Stores v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983) petition for review denied 446 So. 2d 100 (Fla. 1984); Sligar v.
Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972) cert. denied (Fla. 1972); Grand Union Co., v. Patrick, 247 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d DCA
1971).
14
See Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377, 1385-86 (Fla. 1994).
15
Federal Express Corp. v. Cantway, 778 So. 2d 1052, 1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); see also District Board of Trustees of Miami-Dade
County College v. Chao, 739 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999).
16 th
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So. 3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4 DCA 2010); see also Scottsdale Ins. Co. v.
Camara, 813 So. 2d 250, 251-52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002).
17
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121, 1129-30 (Fla. 2005).

37
 Surveillance Video:

Surveillance video is regarded as work product unless it is going to be used at

trial, and if it is, a bright line rule has been established that it need not be produced until

the surveilling party has had the opportunity to depose the subject of the video.18

18 th
Hankerson v. Wiley,154 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 4 DCA 2015).

38
CHAPTER FIVE

EFFECT OF A MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER ON PENDING DISCOVERY

APPLICABLE RULE:

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(c), states in pertinent part:

Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom

discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court in
which the action is pending may make any order to protect a
party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression,
or undue burden or expense that justice requires including one
or more of the following: (1) that the discovery not be had; (2)
that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and
conditions, including a designation of the time or place; . . .
If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part,
the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order
that any party or person provide or permit discovery. The
provisions of Rule 1.380(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses
incurred in relation to the motion.

Rule 1.380(a)(4) addresses a party’s failure to permit discovery and sanctions

against the party wrongfully thwarting discovery.

1. DEPOSITIONS

This issue most commonly arises in connection with a scheduled or court ordered

deposition. A motion for protective order does not automatically stay a pending deposition.1

The movant must file the motion as soon as the need for protection arises, schedule the

motion for hearing sufficiently in advance of the pending proceeding, and show good cause

why discovery should not go forward. A party who seeks a protective order to prevent

discovery must make every reasonable effort to have a motion heard before a scheduled

deposition or other discovery is to occur. The movant bears the burden of showing good

1
Rahman Momenah v. Ammache, 616 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); citing: Stables and CNA Ins. Co. v. Rivers, 559 So. 2d 440
st
(Fla. 1 DCA 1990). See also: Don Mott Agency, Inc. v. Pullum, 352 So. 2d 107 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).

39
cause and obtaining a court order related to the pending proceeding before discovery is to

be had. The failure to file a timely motion for a protective order or to limit discovery may

result in a waiver. However it does not bar a party from asserting privilege or exemption

from matters outside the scope of permissible discovery.2

As always, lawyers should cooperate with each other concerning the scheduling of

both, discovery, and a hearing on a motion for a protective order. Except where the taking

of a deposition is an urgent matter or where the cancellation of a scheduled deposition

would be prejudicial to a party, it is generally in the best interest of both parties to have the

court rule on objections to depositions prior to the time that the deposition is conducted in

order to avoid the necessity for a second deposition of a witness after are later resolved.

Faced with a decision as to whether to attend a deposition while a motion for protective

order is pending (and for which a prior hearing is unavailable) , a lawyer often must make

the difficult decision of whether to waive the objection by appearing at the deposition or

risking sanctions by the court for not appearing. While the filing of a motion for protective

order does not act as a stay until such time as an order is procured form the court, the

courts have the authority to grant or withhold sanctions for failing to appear based upon the

factors enumerated in the case law, including the diligence and good faith of counsel.3

2
Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lease America, Inc., 735 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Insurance Company of North America v.
Noya, 398 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). See also: Berman, Florida Civil Procedure §280.4[1][b] (2005 Edition).
3 th
See: Canella v. Bryant, 235 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4 DCA 1970); and Rahman Momenah, supra.

40
 2. OTHER FORMS OF DISCOVERY

Preservation of objections to other forms of discovery is generally accomplished in

accordance with the Rule of Civil Procedure applicable to that particular method of

discovery. For instance, objections to interrogatories served under Rule 1.340 are

preserved by serving any objections to the interrogatories within 30 days after service of

the interrogatories. If objections are served, the party submitting the interrogatories may

move for an order under Rule 1.380(a) on any objection to or in the event of failure to

answer an interrogatory. Similarly, in the case of production of documents under Rule

1.350, a party objecting to the production of documents shall state its objection in the

written response to the document production request, in which event the party submitting

the request may seek an order compelling the discovery in accordance with Rule 1.380.

Similar procedures exist for the production of documents and things without a deposition

under Rule 1.351 and for the examination of persons under Rule 1.360.

The timely filing of objections to written discovery as described above effectively

stays any obligation of the party objecting to the discovery to provide same until such time

as the objections are ruled upon. This does not, of course, prevent the court from granting

an award of attorneys’ fees or other sanctions under Rule 1.380 in the event that the court

finds that the objections were without merit.

With respect to the necessity for filing a privilege log when withholding information

from discovery claiming that it is privileged, see Chapter Ten, Privilege Logs.

41
CHAPTER SIX

PROPER CONDUCT OF DEPOSITIONS

Starting on the date of admission to The Florida Bar, counsel pledges fairness,

integrity and civility to opposing parties and their counsel, not only in court but also in all

written and oral communications. Oath of Admission to the Florida Bar. The Rules

Regulating the Florida Bar also prohibit a lawyer from “unlawfully obstruct[ing] another

party’s access to evidence,” “fabricat[ing] evidence” or “counsel[ing] or assist[ing] a witness

to testify falsely.” Rule 4-3.4. See also Rule 3-4.3 and 3-4.4 (misconduct may constitute a

ground for discipline); Rule 4-3.5 (Disruption of a Tribunal); Rule 4-4.4 (Respect for Rights

of Third Persons); Rule 4-8 (Maintaining the Integrity of the Profession).

The Florida Bar’s “Guidelines for Professional Conduct,” promulgated jointly by the

Conference of Circuit Court Judges, the Conference of County Court Judges, and the Trial

Lawyers Section of the Florida Bar, specifically address deposition conduct. See Section F

(2008 edition), found within the 2014-2016 Professionalism Handbook. These guidelines

make clear that counsel should refrain from repetitive and argumentative questions, as well

as questions and comments designed to harass or intimidate a witness or opposing

counsel. Counsel are also advised not to engage in any conduct during a deposition that

would not be allowed in the presence of a judicial officer.

Let there be no doubt that violations of these rules of fairness and civility may result

in significant disciplinary action. In The Florida Bar v. Ratiner,1 a lawyer was publicly

reprimanded by the Supreme Court of Florida, suspended for sixty days, and put on

probation for two years, all for engaging in deposition misconduct. See also, 5500 North

1
46 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 2010)

42
Corp. v. Willis,2 in which the Fifth District Court of Appeal approved the trial court’s referral

of deposition conduct issues to The Florida Bar. The appellate court noted that in terms of

counsel’s deposition behavior, “[w]e would expect more civility from Beavis and Butthead.”

Objections

Rule 1.310(c) provides that “[a]ny objection during a deposition shall be stated

concisely and in a non-argumentative and non-suggestive manner.” (Emphasis added).

Speaking objections to deposition questions are frequently designed to obscure or hide the

search for the truth by influencing the testimony of a witness. Objections and statements

that a lawyer would not dare make in the presence of a judge are all too often made at

depositions. For example:

 “I object. This witness could not possibly know the answer to that. He wasn’t

there.”

The typical witness response after hearing that: “I don’t know. I wasn’t there.”

 “I object, you can answer if you remember.”

The typical witness response after hearing that: “I don’t remember.”

 “I object. This case involves a totally different set of circumstances, with

different vehicles, different speeds, different times of day, etc.”

The typical witness response after hearing that: “I don’t know. There are too many
variables to compare the two.”

Objections should be asserted by stating: “I object to the form of the question.” The

grounds should not be stated unless asked for by the examining attorney. When the

grounds are requested, they should be stated succinctly. Coaching the deponent or

suggesting answers through objection or otherwise is improper and should not occur.

2 th
729 So. 2d 508, 514 (Fla. 5 DCA 1999).

43
 Examination and cross-examination of witnesses may proceed as permitted at the

trial. Rule 1.310(c). If a deponent changes his testimony after consulting with his attorney,

the fact of the consultation may be brought out, but the substance of the communication

generally is protected.3 Where an attorney has improperly instructed his client not to

answer a question at deposition, the court may prohibit the attorney from communicating

with the client concerning the topic at issue until such time as the deposition

recommences.4

Rule 1.310(d) provides that a “motion to terminate or limit examination” may be

made upon a showing that objection and instruction to a deponent not to answer are being

made in violation of Rule 1.310(c).

Examinations

Just as the objecting attorney is required to behave in a professional manner, the

examining attorney has the same professional responsibility to treat opposing counsel and

the witness or party being examined with respect and courtesy.

Overly aggressive, hostile and harassing examinations intending to intimidate a

witness or party would not be permitted in the presence of a judicial officer and are likewise

not permitted at deposition. Intentionally misleading a witness or party is similarly

unprofessional and not permitted.

Rule 1.310(d) provides that a “motion to terminate or limit examination” may be

made upon a showing that the examination is being conducted in bad faith or in such

manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass or oppress the deponent or party.

3 th
Haskell Co. v. Ga. Pac. Corp., 684 So. 2d 297 (Fla. 5 DCA 1996).
4 st
McDermott v. Miami-Dade County, 753 So. 2d 729 (Fla. 1 DCA 2000).

44
Proper Response to Improper Conduct

If opposing counsel exhibits any of the behavior described above, the proper

response is to object and concisely describe the improper conduct. Counsel should

exhaust all efforts to resolve a dispute that threatens the ability to proceed with deposition.

If such action fails to resolve the issue, many judges permit counsel to telephone the

court for a brief hearing when irreconcilable issues arise at deposition. Counsel may want

to take a break during the deposition and call chambers, requesting a brief hearing to

resolve the matter. This is especially true if the deposition is out-of-state and would be

costly to reconvene. It helps to know the judge’s preferences in this regard, but judges

generally are aware that the use of this procedure—if not abused by counsel—provides an

excellent opportunity to attempt to resolve issues on the spot before they develop into more

costly and complex proceedings after the fact. However, it is important to note that these

emergency hearings place the judge in a difficult position. Having not personally witnessed

the behavior and without the aid of a deposition transcript, the judge’s ability to issue a

thoughtful, informed order may be limited.

A party or witness who reasonably believes that a deposition is “being conducted in

bad faith or in such manner as unreasonably to annoy, embarrass, or oppress the witness

or party,” or that “objection and instruction to a deponent not to answer are being made in

violation of rule 1.310(c),” may move to terminate or limit the deposition and immediately

move for protective order. The most appropriate action would be to make such motion

orally and concisely on the record at the time of the deposition, and follow promptly with a

written motion for protective order. A copy of the deposition will need to be filed with the

written motion. Rule 1.310(d) specifically provides that the taking of the deposition shall be

45
suspended upon demand of any party or the deponent for the time necessary to make a

motion for an order. All phases of the examination are subject to the control of the court,

which has discretion to make any orders necessary to prevent abuse of the discovery and

deposition process.

46
CHAPTER SEVEN

COMPULSORY MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS AND

DISCOVERY OF CME EXAMINER BIAS

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.360 provides that a party may request that any other party submit to
T

an examination by a qualified expert when the condition that is the subject of the requested

examination is in controversy and the party submitting the request has good cause for the
T

examination. The party making the request has the burden to show that the rule’s “good

cause” and “in controversy” requirements have been satisfied.1 Verified pleadings or

affidavits may be sufficient to satisfy the rule’s requirements instead of an evidentiary

hearing. The party making the request also must disclose the nature of the examination

and the extent of testing that may be performed by the examining physician.2 Although the

examination may include invasive tests, the party to be examined is entitled to know the

extent of the tests, in order to seek the protection of the court in providing for reasonable

measures so that the testing will not cause injury. A party requesting a compulsory medical

examination is not limited to a single examination of the other party; however, the court

should require the requesting party to make a stronger showing of necessity before the

second request is authorized.3 A plaintiff who has sued multiple defendants, as multiple

tortfeasors, may be subject to separate examinations by each defendant.4

Rule 1.360 does not specify where the examination is to be performed. The Rule

requires that the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope be “reasonable.” The

determination of what is reasonable depends on the facts of the case and falls within
1
Russenberger v. Russenberger, 639 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 1994); Olges v. Dougherty, 856 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). Once the
mental or physical condition ceases to be an issue or “in controversy,” good cause will not exist for an examination under Rule
1.360, and Hastings v. Rigsbee, 875 So. 2d 772, (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
2
Schagrin v. Nacht, 683 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
3
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Cox, 974 So. 2d 462, 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
4
Goicochea v. Lopez, 140 So. 3d 1102 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).

47
the trial court’s discretion under McKenney v. Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc.5 Rule 1.360 is
T

based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 35, which has been interpreted as permitting the trial court
T

to order the plaintiff to be examined where the trial will be held because this was the

venue selected by the plaintiff and it would make it convenient for the physician to testify.

In McKenney, an examination of the plaintiff in the county in which the trial was to be held

was not an abuse of discretion, even though the plaintiff resided in a different county. In

Tsutras v. Duhe,6 it was held that the examination of a nonresident plaintiff, who already
T

had come to Florida at his expense for his deposition, should either be at a location that

had the appropriate medical specialties convenient to the nonresident plaintiff, or the

defense should be required to cover all expenses of the plaintiff’s return trip to Florida for

examination. In Goeddel v. Davis, M.D.7 a trial court did not abuse its discretion by

compelling the plaintiff, who resided in another state, to submit to a compulsory medical

examination in the forum state where the compulsory medical examination was to be

conducted during the same trip as a deposition the plaintiff was ordered to attend, and the

defendants were ordered to contribute to the cost of the plaintiff’s trip. In Blagrove v.

Smith,8 a Hernando County trial court did not abuse its discretion by permitting a medical

examination in neighboring Hillsborough County because of the geographical proximity of

the two counties. However, a trial court did abuse its discretion where the court

sanctioned a plaintiff with dismissal after finding the plaintiff willfully violated a court order

in failing to attend a second CME despite the fact that the plaintiff had moved to a

foreign state, advised counsel two days prior that he was financially unable to attend, and

5
686 So. 2d 771 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). See also Leinhart v. Jurkovich 882 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) where request for CME
10 days before trial was denied and upheld on appeal as being within Trial Court’s discretion.
6
685 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
7
993 So. 2d 99, 100 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).
8
701 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

48
filed a motion for protective order with an affidavit detailing his finances and stating he had
T

no available funds or credit to travel to Florida. Littlefield v. J. Pat Torrence.9

The discovery of the examination report and deposition of the examiner for use at
T

trial is permissible under Rule 1.360, even though the examination was prepared in

anticipation of litigation by an expert who was not expected to be called at trial.

Dimeglio v. Briggs-Mugrauer10 involved a claim for uninsured motorist benefits. The

insurance contract provided that the claimant would consent to an examination by the

insurer’s chosen physician if a claim was filed. Before initiation of the lawsuit, the insurer

scheduled a medical examination that was attended by the claimant, and the examiner

confirmed that the claimant had suffered injury. After suit was filed, the plaintiff sought to

take the videotape deposition of the examiner for use at trial. The insurer filed a motion for

a protective order, claiming that the examination and report were protected as work

product, and the trial court agreed. The Dimeglio court reversed, holding that although the

examination was prepared in anticipation of litigation, Rule 1.360 applied, and the

insurer could not claim a work product privilege for a physician examination of the plaintiff

by the insurance company’s chosen physician.

Issue 1:

The plaintiff objects to the doctor selected by the defendant to examine the

plaintiff.

9
See Littelfield v. J. Pat Torrence 778 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). See also Wapnick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Co., 54 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (requiring plaintiff to travel approximately 100 miles from county of residence
where defendant offered to reimburse travel expenses, although reversing denial of coverage).
10
708 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

49
Resolution:

Judges generally will allow the medical examination to be conducted by the

T
T

doctor of the defendant’s choice. The rationale sometimes given is that the plaintiff’s

examining and treating physicians have been selected by the plaintiff.11 However,

whether to permit a defendant’s request for examination under Rule 1.360 is a matter

of judicial discretion. Furthermore, Rule 1.360(a)(3) permits a trial court to establish

protective rules for the compulsory examination. Thus, a defendant does not have an

absolute right to select the expert to perform the examination.12

Issue 2:

Who may accompany the examinee to a compulsory examination, and may the

examination be videotaped, audiotaped, or recorded by a court reporter?

Resolution:

Rule 1.360 (a)(3) permits the trial court, at the request of either party, to establish
T
T

protective rules for compulsory examinations. The general rule is that attendance of a

third party at a court-ordered medical examination is a matter within the sound

discretion of the trial judge.13 A plaintiff may request that a third party attend an

examination to (1) accurately record events at the examination; (2) “assist” in providing a

medical history or a description of an accident; and (3) validate or dispute the examining

doctor’s findings and conclusions.14 The burden of proof and persuasion rests with the

11
Toucet v. Big Bend Moving & Storage 581 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).
12
See State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company v. Shepard, 644 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
13
Bartell v. McCarrick, 498 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986).
14
Wilkins v. Palumbo, 617 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

50
party opposing the attendance to show why the court should deny the examinee’s
T

right to have present counsel, a physician, or another representative.15

Without a valid reason to prohibit the third party’s presence, the examinee’s
T T T

representative should be allowed.16 In making the decision about third-party

attendance at the examination, the trial court should consider the nature of the

examination, the function that the requested third party will serve at the examination, and

the reason why the examining doctor objects to the presence of the third party. A doctor

must provide a case-specific justification to support an objection in an affidavit that the

presence at the examination of a third party will be disruptive.17 Once this test is satisfied,

the defendant must prove at an evidentiary hearing that no other qualified physician can

be located in the area who would be willing to perform the examination with a third party

(court reporter, attorney, or other representative) present.18 This criteria applies to

compulsory examinations for physical injuries and psychiatric conditions.19

The rationale for permitting the presence of the examinee’s attorney is to protect T

the examinee from improper questions unrelated to the examination.20 Furthermore, the

examinee has a right to preserve by objective means, the precise communications that

occurred during the examination. Without a record, the examinee will be compelled to

challenge the credibility of the examiner should a dispute arise later. “Both the examiner

15
Broyles v. Reilly, 695 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Wilkins; Stakely v. Allstate Ins. Co., 547 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
16
See Broyles (videographer and attorney); Palank v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 657 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (in wrongful
death case, mother of minor plaintiffs, counsel, and means of recording); Wilkins (court reporter); McCorkle v. Fast, 599 So. 2d 277
(Fla. 2d DCA 1992) (attorney); Collins v. Skinner, 576 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991) (court reporter); Stakely (court reporter);
Bartell (representative from attorney’s office); Gibson v. Gibson, 456 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (court reporter).
17
See Wilkins, supra.
18
See Broyles, supra.
19
Freeman v. Latherow, 722 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Stephens v. State of Florida, 932 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (the
DCA held that the trial court did not deviate from the law when it denied plaintiff’s request that his expert witness be permitted to
accompany him on a neuropsychological exam by a state-selected medical professional).
20
See Toucet, supra.

51
and examinee should benefit by the objective recording of the proceedings, and the T

integrity and value of the examination as evidence in the judicial proceedings should be

enhanced.”21 The rationale for permitting a third party’s presence or recording the

examination is based on the examinee’s right of privacy rather than the needs of the

examiner. If the examinee is compelled to have his or her privacy disturbed in the form of a

compulsory examination, the examinee is entitled to limit the intrusion to the purpose of the

examination and to have an accurate preservation of the record.

Courts may recognize situations in which a third party’s presence should not be
T
T
T T T

allowed. Those situations may include the existence of a language barrier, the inability to

engage any medical examiner who will perform the examination in the presence of a third

party, the particular psychological or physical needs of the examinee, or the customs and

practices in the area of the bar and medical profession.22 However, in the absence

of truly extraordinary circumstances, a defendant will not be able to satisfy its burden of

proof and persuasion to prevent the attendance of a passive observer.23 It has been held

that a court reporter’s potential interference with the examination or inability to transcribe

the physician’s tone or facial expressions are invalid reasons.24 The examiner’s refusal to

perform the examination in the presence of third parties also is an insufficient ground

for a court to find that a third party’s presence would be disruptive.25 Excluding a

court reporter because of a claimed chilling effect on physicians and the diminishing

number of physicians available to conduct examinations also is insufficient.26 However, it

21
Gibson v. Gibson, 456 So. 2d at 1320, 1321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984).
22
See Bartell, supra.
23
See Broyles, supra; See Wilkins, supra.
24
See Collins, supra.
25
See McCorkle, supra; See Toucet, supra.
26
Truesdale v. Landau, 573 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). See also Broyles, supra.

52
would take an exceptional circumstance to permit anyone other than a videographer or
T

court reporter and the plaintiff’s attorney to be present on behalf of the plaintiff at a

Rule 1.360 compulsory examination.27 For example, defendants in a personal injury

lawsuit were not entitled to have a videographer record the examination even though the

examinee had her own videographer present. Prince v. Mallari.28 The Second and Third

DCAs follow this opinion.

In most circumstances, the examinee’s desire to have the examination videotaped

T T

should be approved. There is no reason that the presence at an examination of a

videographer should be treated differently from that of a court reporter. A trial court order

that prohibits videotaping a compulsory examination without any evidence of valid, case-

specific objections from the complaining party may result in irreparable harm to the

requesting party and serve to justify extraordinary relief.29 Similarly, an audiotape may be

substituted to ensure that the examiner is not asking impermissible questions and that an

accurate record of the examination is preserved.30 Video or audio tape of the CME

obtained by the examinee’s attorney should be considered work product as long as the

recording is not being used for impeachment or use at trial. See McGarrah v. Bayfront

Medical Center.31

In McClennan v. American Building Maintenance,32 the court applied the rationale

in Toucet, supra, and Bartell, supra, to workers’ compensation disputes, and held that

27
See Broyles, supra.
28
36 So. 3d 128 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).
29
Lunceford v. Florida Central Railroad Co., Inc., 728 So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999).
30
Medrano v. BEC Const. Corp., 588 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991).
31
McGarrah v. Bayfront Medical Center, 889 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
32
648 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

53
third parties, including attorneys, could attend an independent medical examination

given under F.S. § 440.13(2)(b).

In U.S. Security Ins. Co. v. Cimino,33 the Florida Supreme Court held that, for a
T

medical examination conducted under F.S. § 627.736(7) for personal injury protection

benefits, “the insured should be afforded the same protections as are afforded to plaintiffs

for Rule 1.360 and workers’ compensation examinations.”

There are limitations on discovery of an examiner performing a CME. For example,

T

an examiner will not be compelled to disclose CME reports of other non-party examinees or

to testify about findings contained in those reports.34 In Allstate Insurance Co. v.

36
Boecher,35 the Supreme Court held that neither Elkins v. Syken nor Rule 1.280(b)(4)(A)

prevents discovery of a party’s relationship with a particular expert when the discovery is

propounded directly to the party. In Boecher, the court held that the jury was entitled to

know the extent of the financial connection between the party and the expert witness.

Boecher and Elkins have spawned dozens of cases on the general issue of medical

experts and their bias. However this section deals exclusively with the CME expert.

(Commonly referred to by the Plaintiff’s Bar as the “Insurance Company’s Doctor.”).

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(5) establishes the parameters of discovery directed to a

non-party retained expert. It is critical that the trial judge read the Rule in every instance

and not get distracted by issues that simply do not relate to CME experts.

(5) Trial Preparation: Experts. Discovery of facts known and

opinions held by experts, otherwise discoverable under the provisions

33
754 So. 2d 697, 701 (Fla. 2000).
34
Crowley v. Lamming, 66 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Coopersmith v. Perrine, 91 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (sustaining
objections to interrogatories directed to the examiner’s “opinions and basis of the opinions” of other non-party examinees as same
constituted an intrusion into those non-parties’ privacy rights).
35
733 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1999).
36
672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996).

54
 of subdivision (b)(1) of this rule and acquired or developed in
anticipation of litigation or for trial, may be obtained only as follows:

(A)
....

(iii) A party may obtain the following discovery regarding any person
disclosed by interrogatories or otherwise as a person expected to be
called as an expert witness at trial:

1. The scope of employment in the pending case and the

compensation for such service.

2. The expert’s general litigation experience, including the

percentage of work performed for plaintiffs and defendants.

3. The identity of other cases, within a reasonable time period, in

which the expert has testified by deposition or at trial.

4. An approximation of the portion of the expert’s involvement as

an expert witness, which may be based on the number of
hours, percentage of hours, or percentage of earned income
derived from serving as an expert witness; however, the expert
shall not be required to disclose his or her earnings as an
expert witness or income derived from other services.

An expert may be required to produce financial and business

records only under the most unusual or compelling
circumstances and may not be compelled to compile or
produce nonexistent documents. . . .

In Gramman v. Stachkunas, 750 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), the Fifth District

quashed an order requiring a medical expert to disclose his billing records and

payments for past medical examinations and 1099 forms from insurance companies,

which had referred matters to the expert for a medical opinion. The Court stated:

[T]he discovery order which compels [the defendant] and the

independent medical expert to answer interrogatories
regarding the expert’s financial remuneration for past
examinations, depositions, and courtroom testimony must be
quashed. The trial court departed from the essential
requirements of law in compelling this discovery, and in
requiring the expert to produce his billing/payment records and
1099s regarding his prior work as an expert in other cases.

55
 A subpoena may not be used to secure discovery of financial or business records

concerning a litigation expert unless “unusual or compelling circumstances” have been

shown. Smith v. Eldred, 96 So. 3d 1102, 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); Miller v. Harris, 2

So. 3d 1070, 1073 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2009).

There are additional third party privacy concerns for the Court to consider when

deciding CME Examiner bias discovery issues. Section 456.057(7)(a), Florida Statutes

requires notice to patients whose medical records are sought before issuance of a

subpoena for the records by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Simply redacting the

non-party patients’ information is not enough. Coopersmith v. Perrine, 91 So. 3d 246

(Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Consider Judge May’s concurring opinion in Coopersmith relative

to the Court’s frustration with this type of discovery practice.

I concur with the majority in its reasoning and result, but write
to express my concern over recent discovery issues we have
seen. We are increasingly reviewing orders on discovery
requests that go above and beyond those relevant to the case.
Attorneys are propounding interrogatories and making requests
for production, which require physicians to divulge private,
confidential information of other patients, and to “create”
documents.

In an effort to discredit medical witnesses for the other side,

attorneys for both plaintiffs and defendants are exceeding the
bounds of the rules of civil procedure, confidentiality laws, and
professionalism by engaging in irrelevant, immaterial,
burdensome, and harassing discovery. Parameters have
already been expanded to allow both sides to explore financial
interests of medical witnesses and the volume of referrals to
those witnesses. See Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla.
1996). And now, attempts to expand the scope of that
discovery to treating physicians as well as retained experts are
usurping the limited resources of our trial courts. This not only
creates unnecessary burdens on our over-strained justice
system, it further taints the public’s view of our profession.

For a more detailed discussion of expert witness discovery see Chapter Eleven of this handbook.

56
CHAPTER EIGHT
OBTAINING PSYCHOLOGICAL RECORDS WHEN
PAIN AND SUFFERING ARE AT ISSUE

Chapter 90, Florida Statutes, codifies the psychotherapist-patient privilege1 and T

provides in pertinent part:

(2) A patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose,

and to prevent any other person from disclosing,
confidential communications or records made for the
purpose of diagnosis or treatment of the patient’s
mental or emotional condition, including alcoholism and
other drug addiction, between the patient and the
psychotherapist, or persons who are participating in the
diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the
psychotherapist. This privilege includes any diagnosis
made, and advice given, by the psychotherapist in the
course of that relationship.2

* * *
(4) There is no privilege under this section:

* * *
(b) For communications made in the course of a
court-ordered examination of the mental or emotional
condition of the patient.

(c) For communications relevant to an issue of

the mental or emotional condition of the patient in any
proceeding in which the patient relies upon the
condition as an element of his or her claim or defense
or, after the patient’s death, in any proceeding in which
T

any party relies upon the condition as an element of

the party’s claim or defense.3

1
A psychotherapist is defined by section 90.503(1), Florida Statutes (2015) and includes any person authorized to practice
medicine or reasonably believed by the patient so to be, that is “engaged in the diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional
condition.” A medical doctor is a psychotherapist for purposes of the statute if he o r s h e is engaged in treating or diagnosing a
mental condition, however, other health care professionals, such as psychologists, are only considered psychotherapists if they
are “engaged primarily in the diagnosis or treatment of a mental or emotional condition...” Compare § 90.503(1)(a)1., with §
90.503(1)(a)2., Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). In 2006, the Legislature amended section 90.503(1)(a), Florida Statutes, to include
advanced registered nurse practitioners within the ambit of the statute. See § 90.503(1)(a)5., F l a . S t a t . (2006) (effective July
1, 2006).
2
§ 90.503(2), Fla. Stat. (2015).
3
§ 90.503(4)(c), Fla. Stat.(2015).

57
 Moreover, pursuant to section 394.4615, Florida Statutes (2015), clinical records

maintained by psychotherapists are shielded by a broad cloak of confidentiality; the statute

carves out specific instances wherein disclosure of information from patient records shall or
T

may be released. The intent behind the enactment of the psychotherapist-patient privilege

is to encourage individuals suffering from mental, emotional, or behavioral disorders to

seek out and obtain treatment without fearing public scrutiny and enable those individuals

experiencing such problems to obtain proper care and assistance.4

Section 90.503(4)(c), Florida Statutes (2015), one of the statutory exceptions to the T

privilege, stems from the notion that a party should be barred from using the privilege as

both a sword and a shield, that is, seeking to recover for mental and or emotional damages T

on the one hand, while hiding behind the privilege on the other.5 For example, when a

plaintiff seeks recovery for mental anguish or emotional distress, Florida courts generally
T

hold that the plaintiff has caused his or her mental condition to be at issue and the

psychotherapist privilege is therefore, waived.6 The statutory privilege is also deemed

waived where a party relies on his or her post-accident mental or emotional condition as

4
Segarra v. Segarra, 932 So. 2d 1159, 1161 (Fla 3d DCA 2006) (citing Cedars Healthcare Group, Ltd. v. Freeman, 829 So. 2d 390,
391 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)); Attorney Ad Litem for D.K. v. Parents of D.K., 780 So. 2d 301, 305-306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Carson v.
Jackson, 466 So. 2d 1188, 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); see also Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-12 (1996) (In 1996, the United
States Supreme Court held that the psychotherapist privilege serves the public interest and, if the privilege were rejected,
confidential conversations between psychotherapists and their patients would surely be chilled.).
5
Nelson v. Womble, 657 So. 2d 1221, 1222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (citing Sykes v. St. Andrews Sch., 619 So. 2d 467, 469 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1993)).
6
See Haney v. Mizell Memorial Hosp., 744 F.2d 1467, 1476 (11th Cir. 1984) (applying Florida law to a claim for mental anguish due
to medical malpractice); Belmont v. North Broward Hosp. Dist., 727 So. 2d 992, 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (no privilege after patient’s
death in proceeding in which party relies upon condition as element of claim or defense); Nelson, 657 So. 2d at 1222
(psychotherapist-patient privilege did not preclude discovery in personal injury action seeking loss of consortium and infliction of
mental anguish); Scheff v. Mayo, 645 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (mental anguish from rear-end motor vehicle accident);
Sykes v. St. Andrews Sch., 619 So. 2d 467, 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (emotional distress from sexual battery); F.M. v. Old Cutler
Presbyterian Church, Inc., 595 So. 2d 201, 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (allegations of sexual, physical and emotional abuse of a minor
placed her mental state at issue and waived her right to confidentiality concerning her mental condition); Arzola v. Reigosa, 534 So.
2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (post-accident mental anguish damages arising out of an automobile/bicycle collision barred the plaintiff
from invoking the psychotherapist-patient privilege). Compare Nelson, 657 So. 2d at 1222 (determining loss of enjoyment of life as
a claim for loss of consortium) with Partner-Brown v. Bornstein, D.P.M., 734 So. 2d 555, 556 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“The allusion to
loss of enjoyment of life, without more, does not place the mental or emotional condition of the plaintiff at issue so to waive the
protection of section 90.503.”).

58
an element of a claim or defense.7 Failure to timely assert the privilege does not constitute

waiver, so long as the information already produced does not amount to a significant part of

the matter or communication for which the privilege is being asserted.8 The waiver

provision contained in section 90.507, Florida Statutes (2015) will apply, however, when

information previously produced in discovery is considered a substantial part of the

patient’s claim of privilege.9 Limited voluntary disclosure of some aspects of the

psychotherapist-patient privileged matters or communications will not constitute a waiver.10

The exception to the privilege does not apply merely because the patient’s symptoms

accompanying a physical injury are of a type which might arguably be associated with some

separate mental or emotional condition.11 In addition, a claim for loss of enjoyment of life,

“without more, does not place the mental or emotional condition of the plaintiff at issue so as

to waive the protection of section 90.503.”12

7
Arzola, 534 So. 2d 883; Connell v. Guardianship of Connell, 476 So. 2d 1381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Helmick v. McKinnon, 657 So.
2d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (In the context of personal injury actions, pre-accident psychological and psychiatric records are
relevant to determine whether the condition existed before the accident).
8
See Palm Beach County Sch. Bd. v. Morrison, 621 So. 2d 464, 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (rejecting the argument that the plaintiff
waived the psychotherapist-patient privilege because it was not timely asserted and reasoning that because it was asserted before
there was an actual disclosure of the information for which the patient claimed the privilege, section 90.507, Florida Statutes was not
applicable).
9
Id.; Garbacik v. Wal-Mart Transp., LLC, 932 So. 2d 500, 503-504 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (citing Sykes v. St. Andrews Sch., 619 So.
2d 467, 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)).
10
Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Kelley, 903 So. 2d 240, 241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (no waiver of privilege recognized, even though
patient voluntarily disclosed some aspects of the privileged matters or communications during her deposition by admitting that she
had been prescribed anti-depressants for her post-traumatic stress disorder following the horrific traffic crash at issue, since the
plaintiff never placed her mental state a material element of any claim or defense); Olson v. Blasco, 676 So. 2d 481, 482 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1996) (A defendant’s listing of therapists’ names in response to a criminal discovery request does not waive the privilege in a
wrongful death action stemming from the same facts when there is no showing that there will be a defense based on a mental
condition.); see also Bandorf v. Volusia County Dept. of Corrections, 939 So. 2d 249, 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (worker’s
compensation plaintiff claiming fatigue and neurological symptoms from physical injuries does not place emotional or mental
condition at issue); Segarra v. Segarra, 932 So. 2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (The psychotherapist-patient privilege is not
waived in joint counseling sessions).
11
Bandorf, 939 So. 2d at 251 (upholding the privilege in a worker’s compensation action involving an employees’ repetitive
exposure to mold, toxic substances and chemicals in the workplace which led the employee to suffer fatigue and neurological
symptoms).
12
Byxbee v. Reyes, 850 So. 2d 595, 596 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (quoting Partner-Brown v. Bornstein, 734 So. 2d 555, 556 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1999)).

59
 The party seeking to depose a psychotherapist or obtain psychological records
T T

bears the burden of showing that the patient’s mental or emotional condition has

been introduced as an issue in the case.13 What is more, if a plaintiff has not placed his or

her mental condition at issue, the defendant’s sole contention that the plaintiff’s mental

stability is at issue will not overcome the privilege.14

The privilege does not protect from discovery any relevant medical records of a

psychiatrist or other medical provider made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of a

condition other than mental or emotional ailments.15 Thus, relevant medical records that

do not pertain to the diagnosis or treatment of a mental, emotional or behavioral

disorder are not privileged and should be produced even if they are maintained by a

psychiatrist. On the other hand, records made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment

of a mental, emotional or behavioral conditions that may contain other medical

information, such as physical examinations, remain privileged and are not subject to

disclosure.16

Florida law recognizes that a plaintiff who has incurred a physical injury may
T

allege and prove physical pain and suffering as an element of a claim for monetary

damages.17 The term “pain and suffering” has not been judicially defined, however, Florida

courts have provided a number of factors that may be considered by the trier of fact in

13
Garbacik, 932 So. 2d at 503; Morrison, 621 So. 2d at 468; Yoho v. Lindsley, 248 So. 2d 187, 192 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
14
Weinstock v. Groth, 659 So. 2d 713, 715 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (plaintiff able to assert privilege because she had not placed her
mental condition at issue in her defamation action); Cruz-Govin v. Torres, 29 So. 3d 393, 396 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (“The statutory
exception applies when the patient, not the opposing party who seeks the privileged information, places his mental health at issue.”).
15
Oswald v. Diamond, 576 So. 2d 909, 910 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (reversing in part a trial order granting a motion to compel discovery
of medical records to the extent that medical testimony and reports not pertaining to the diagnosis and treatment of a mental or
emotional disorder may exist).
16
Byxbee, 850 So. 2d at 596.
17
Grainger v. Fuller, 72 So. 462, 463 (Fla. 1916) (allowing recovery of damages for future pain and suffering as a direct effect of a
physical injury caused to the plaintiff); Parrish v. City of Orlando, 53 So. 3d 1199, 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011) (“[W]here evidence is
undisputed or substantially undisputed that a plaintiff has experienced and will experience pain and suffering as a result of an
accident, a zero award for pain and suffering is inadequate as a matter of law.”).

60
awarding damages for pain and suffering.18 These factors recognize that pain and
T

suffering has a mental as well as a physical component. Physical pain and suffering,

absent mental anguish, can impair the enjoyment of life.19

Section 90.503(2) specifically applies to communications and records “including

alcoholism and other drug addiction.” In the cases noted below, the trial court allowed

discovery of defendant driver’s treatment for drug addiction post-accident, inasmuch as the

complaint alleged that the defendant driver was under the influence of drugs and alcohol at

the time of the accident, other discovery supported that allegation, and defendant’s answer

denied being under the influence. On review, the appellate courts stated that the defendant

did not abrogate the privilege by denying the allegations of the complaint, the plaintiff did not

establish the existence of any of the other exceptions to the privilege, and they granted

certiorari, and quashed the orders.20

It is worth noting that in David J. Burton, D.M.D., P.A. v. Becker, 516 So. 2d 283 (Fla.

2d DCA 1987) the court held that medical records of the physician’s treatment for drug abuse

were subject to disclosure in a medical malpractice case, because section 397.053(2),

Florida Statutes (1985), permitted a court to order disclosure of drug treatment records when

good cause is shown.

However, Section 397.053 was repealed effective October 1, 1993. The 2009

amendment to Chapter 397 contains section 397.501, which provides for the rights of clients

18
Tampa Electric Co. v. Bazemore, 96 So. 297, 302 (Fla. 1923) (In determining the measure of damages, the court embraced
various elements when considering pain and suffering, including, physical and mental pain and suffering, resulting from the
character or nature of the injury, the inconvenience, humiliation, and embarrassment the plaintiff will suffer on account of the loss of
a limb, the diminished capacity for enjoyment of life to which all the limbs and organs of the body with which nature has provided us
are so essential, and the plaintiff’s diminished capacity for earning a living.); Bandorf, 939 So. 2d at 251 (observing that, “[i]t should
be apparent that physical pain and suffering, absent mental anguish, can impair the enjoyment of life”).
19
Id.
20
See Cruz-Govin v. Torres, 29 So. 3d 393 (Fla 3d DCA 2010) and Brown v. Montanez, 90 So. 3d 982 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).

61
receiving substance abuse services. Subsection 397.501(7)(a)5, provides for the

confidentiality of records, with the following exceptions:

(a) The records of service providers which pertain to the identity,

diagnosis, and prognosis of and service provision to any individual
are confidential in accordance with this chapter and with applicable
federal confidentiality regulations and are exempt from s. 119.07(1)
and s. 24(a), Art. 1 of the State Constitution. Such records may not
be disclosed without the written consent of the individual to whom
they pertain except that appropriate disclosure may be made
without such consent:

…….

………

5. Upon court order based on application showing good cause for

disclosure. In determining whether there is good cause for
disclosure, court shall examine whether the public interest and
the need for disclosure outweigh the potential injury to the
individual, to the service provider and the individual, and to the
service provider itself.

Consider Brown v. Montanez, 90 So. 3d 982, (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) where the Court

held that where the criminal defendant was sent to drug related treatment as a result of his

bond and not as a negotiated criminal plea agreement with the Court, there had been no

Court ordered examination of the mental or emotional condition of the patient under §

90.503(4)(b), Fla. Stat. (2011).

62
CHAPTER NINE

ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY

Florida litigators increasingly confront discovery involving electronic documents and

other types of electronically stored information (“ESI”)1 and the hardware and media on
T

which ESI is created, transferred, communicated, and stored. Because far more than 95%

of today’s documents are created, transferred, or maintained electronically, and because

computers, phones, and other electronic devices pervade our culture, e-discovery can crop

up in almost any case from a simple negligence case to commercial litigation. The

fundamental issues regarding ESI involve (1) disclosure and protection of client ESI and

hardware, (2) preservation of ESI by the client and the opposing parties and third parties,

(3) access to ESI of opposing parties and third parties, (4) maintaining privacy and

privilege, (5) costs of discovery, and (6) application of Florida’s existing discovery rules

and common law in an arena that changes virtually every day as technology advances.

Competent representation of the client requires the legal skill, knowledge,

thoroughness, and preparation necessary for the representation.2 Competence in ESI

discovery is essential to successfully manage such discovery in an e f f e c t i v e ,

economical, efficient, and balanced fashion. Since the law lags behind emerging and

changing technology and because of the increasing availability of discoverable ESI, it is

incumbent on lawyers and judges to make special efforts to become competent and stay

current on ESI fundamentals and discovery. Staying current entails up-to-date knowledge
1
Electronically stored information, “ESI,” is the nomenclature adopted in the Florida and federal rules to refer to computer files of all
kinds. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(3); Rule 34, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The term ESI is not defined in the Florida and
federal rules on purpose because of the ever-changing nature of such information. The Comments to the Federal Rules explain that
the term ESI should be construed expansively “to cover all current types of computer-based information, and flexible enough to
encompass future changes and developments.”
2
Rule 4-1.1, Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. See also ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.1 Competence—
Comment, Para. (8) found at http://bit.ly/NZsya6.

63
of the culture of information: how information is created, used, managed, stored,

communicated, and manipulated. New technology and information cultures are rapidly

evolving, including new types of social media, small personal computer devices such as

watches, cloud storage websites of all kinds where information may be kept indefinitely,

and even appliances such as online security systems that are part of what is called the

Internet of Things. All of these new products and information sources can create relevant

evidence in a variety of cases. The volume of potentially relevant electronic evidence also

continues to increase at an exponential level.

One of the foremost challenges in this kind of complex environment is protection of

the client’s confidential information, included personal protected information and privileged T

communications. This requires counsel to ensure that client information is protected and is

disclosed only to the extent required by law or reasonably necessary to serve the client’s

interest.3 Court recordkeeping and filing is now done in electronic format in Florida courts.

This makes u n f e t t e r e d t h i r d p a r t y e l e c t r o n i c access to court records, including

client information i n the record, far easier than ever before. Accordingly, counsel should

only put in the record that which is required or reasonably necessary to serve the client’s
T

interest. If necessary, invoke the process of sealing private or sensitive information before

the record becomes available as a public record.4 In anticipation of electronic

recordkeeping and the need for protection of privacy interests of parties and non-parties,

the Florida Supreme Court enacted rules requiring lawyers to analyze and screen

3
Rule 4-1.6, Florida Rules of Professional Conduct. See also Fla. Prof. Ethics Op. 10-2 (obligation of lawyers with regard to
confidentiality of client information when employing devices with hard drives and other media); 06-2 (responsibility for confidentiality
and other obligations regarding metadata).
4
Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420.

64
information for certain confidential information before it is placed in the court record.5 At a

minimum, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(g), information should not be filed with the court

absent good cause, which is satisfied only when the filing of the information is allowed or

required by another applicable rule of procedure or by court order.6 The lawyer is obligated

to know enough about the client’s ESI and the locations w h e r e it may be found to

fully comply with discovery without m a k i n g u n n e c e s s a r y disclosures. The

client’s equipment, data, and software should be protected from damage or destruction.

The client should also be fully informed on the extent, if any, of the obligation to preserve

information. At the same time, the client’s business processes and handling of data should

be protected from unnecessary intrusion from perceived court-related obligations. Finally,

counsel and the court should be sufficiently informed of the ESI technology systems

likely to contain relevant information in order to assist counsel to obtain permitted

discovery of ESI from the opposing party and third parties.

Rulemaking for electronic discovery nationwide and in Florida has lagged behind the

technology of how data is created, stored, and communicated. N o n e t h e l e s s , Florida

Civil Procedure and Judicial Administration Rules now expressly address issues caused by

the use of digital technology in Florida Courts7 and discovery of ESI.8 Effective September

1, 2012, the Florida Supreme Court adopted several amendments to the Florida Rules of

5
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(g); 1.310(f)(3); 1.340(e); 1.350(d); and Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420; 2.425.
6
Rule 1.280(g) provides: “Information obtained during discovery shall not be filed with the court until such time as it is filed for good
cause. The requirement of good cause is satisfied only where the filing of the information is allowed or required by another
applicable rule of procedure or by court order. All filings of discovery documents shall comply with Florida Rule of Judicial
Administration 2.425. The court shall have authority to impose sanctions for violation of this rule.”
7
Id.
8
See In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure -- Electronic Discovery, 95 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 2012). See also Fla. R.
Civ. P. 1.285 (inadvertent disclosure of privileged material). In addition, Florida’s 9th, 11th, 13th, and 17th Circuits have business or
commercial litigation sections with special local administrative rules and processes for more complicated cases. These local rules
include special handling of electronically stored information. Refer to local rules and comply with all requirements when handling
cases assigned to a special commercial or business court.

65
Civil Procedure9 largely modeled on the 2006 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.10 Compatibility with federal rules enables use of federal decisions on electronic

discovery as persuasive authority11 in the absence of Florida cases and ensures

harmony of e-discovery law between cases in Florida state courts and cases in federal

court and other states. The Florida electronic discovery rules contain some improvements

and adjustments from their federal counterparts that arguably make the rules better suited

to the broader range of state court jurisdiction in size and subject matter. A chart comparing

the Florida electronic rules and the federal rules is attached to this chapter as Appendix A.

There are many good reasons for specialized rules for ESI discovery. ESI is

ephemeral; sometimes easily hidden, mislabeled, or destroyed; available from multiple

sources in a variety of forms; capable of electronic search, analysis and c o m p i l a t i o n ;

sometimes accompanied by information or availability not apparent to the creator or user,

such as metadata; and frequently misunderstood by persons lacking in expertise. ESI

also exists in incredibly large quantities. One Thousand gigabyte (One Terabyte) computer

hard-drives are now standard issue on many computers, whereas a single gigabyte of

information is equivalent to a truckload of paper documents. Many people today receive

hundreds of e-mails and text messages a day and they may store them indefinitely in a

variety of locations, some of which may be unknown to them. It is not uncommon in

business today for management personnel to each keep hundreds of thousands of emails

and attachments. Large enterprises commonly store trillions of emails and attachments,

and in many cases may have to search through millions of emails to try to locate relevant

9
Id.
10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, 26, 33, 34, 37 and 45. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure were amended, effective December 1, 2015.
11
Federal courts have generated copious numbers of cases under the federal e-discovery rules since 2007, because federal district
judges and magistrates regularly enter published discovery opinions and orders, which creates a body of useful written law that is
largely absent in Florida state court.

66
evidence. There are often accessibility problems for some of the ESI stored, including

backup systems. The places on which ESI can be stored or located are manifold and ever

changing, and include the over one- trillion websites that now exist on the Internet. ESI

may sometimes be easier and cheaper to search and to produce in electronic form than

the same quantity of paper documents, but it is often much more difficult to locate and

retrieve relevant ESI. Again, that is largely because of the high volume of total ESI

maintained on a multiplicity of systems that may contain relevant information. The problem

is compounded by the need to review most of the material for privilege, privacy, and trade

secrets before it is disclosed. For these reasons it is today far more difficult and more

expensive to access, search, categorize, compile, and produce relevant ESI than in the

past when most records were only in paper form, were easily organized and accessed in

centralized locations, and were far, far fewer in number and type.

Issues related to the spiraling cost issues of e-discovery contribute to the special

treatment for ESI provided in the new rules and case law. Florida rules expressly provide

that ESI is discoverable,12 but they also require proportionality of expense.13 Florida rules

help maintain cost proportionality by providing an express framework for dealing with

issues of preservation, production, and protection for hard-to-find and retrieve ESI and the

media, equipment, and third party Internet “cloud” storage websites that hold ESI.14 A

person may object to discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the

person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of burden or cost. The person from

whom discovery is sought has the initial burden of showing that the information sought or
12
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(3) (“A party may obtain discovery of electronically stored information in accordance with these rules).
13
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(2)(ii) (“the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules if it
determines that… the burden or expense of the discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount
in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in
resolving the issues.”).
14
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(2)(ii).

67
the format requested is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that

showing is made by specific evidence, the court may nonetheless order the discovery upon

a showing of good cause. The court may specify conditions of the discovery, including

ordering that some or all of the expenses incurred by the person from whom discovery is

sought be paid by the party seeking the discovery.15

In Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 217 FRD 309 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), the court set forth

an analytical framework for determining whether it is appropriate to shift the costs of

electronic discovery. If the responding party is producing data from “inaccessible” sources,

i.e. data that is not readily useable and must be restored to an accessible format, the court

identified seven factors to be considered in determining whether shifting the cost of

production is appropriate.16

The scope of discovery may also be limited by the producing party or person’s

privacy rights, as when the relevance or need for the information requested does not

exceed the privacy interests of the person or party from whom it is sought.17

Florida rules also provide additional protection for confidential and privileged

information not discoverable that may be inadvertently produced with discoverable

material.18 Rule 1.285, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, establishes a process by which a

party, person, or entity may retroactively assert privilege as to inadvertently disclosed

materials, regardless of whether the inadvertent disclosure was made pursuant to “formal

15
Id.
16
Zubulake, id, 217 FRD at 322.
17
Compare Root v. Balfour Beatty Const., LLC, 132 So. 3d 867,869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014) (order compelling the production of social
th
media discovery that implicates privacy rights demonstrates irreparable harm), with Nucci v. Target Corp., 162 So. 3d 146 (Fla. 4
DCA 2015) (photographs posted on a social networking site are neither privileged nor protected by any right of privacy, regardless
of any privacy settings that the user may have established).
18
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.285.

68
demand or informal request.”19 The privilege must be asserted within ten days of actual

discovery of the inadvertent disclosure by serving a prescribed written notice of the

assertion of privilege on the party to whom the materials were disclosed.20 A party

receiving notice under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.285(a) must promptly (1) return, sequester, or

destroy the materials and any copies of the materials, (2) notify any other party, person, or

entity to whom it has disclosed the materials of the fact that the notice has been served and

of the effect of the rule, and (3) take reasonable steps to retrieve the materials disclosed.21

Rule 1.285 prescribes the manner in which a receiving party may challenge the assertion of

privilege22 and the effect of a court determination that privilege applies.23

Because ESI and the modern equipment that creates, holds, communicates, or

manipulates it are complex and constantly evolving, sometimes expert assistance is

needed by clients, counsel, or the court to search and prepare ESI for production. Such

expert assistance may involve legal as well as technical issues and tasks. The parties and

Court should consider the appointment of Special Masters or Third Party Neutral experts in

appropriate cases.

The developing principles for electronic discovery and the Committee Notes to the

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure encourage cooperation and transparency by the parties

during meetings between counsel early in a case to try to agree on the scope of

19
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.285(a).
20
Id. The notice must include specifics on the materials in question, the nature of the privilege asserted, and the date on which
inadvertent disclosure was discovered. The process applies to any privilege cognizable at law, including the attorney-client, work
product, and the several other types of privileges recognized in the Florida Evidence Code. See Fla. Stat. § 90.501–.510 (journalist,
lawyer-client, psychotherapist-patient, sexual assault counselor-victim, domestic violence advocate-victim, husband-wife, clergy,
accountant-client, and trade secret privileges). Id.
21
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.285(b). Nothing in Rule 1.285 diminishes or limits any ethical obligation with regard to receipt of privileged
materials pursuant to Fla. R. Prof. Conduct 4-4.4(b). Id.
22
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.285(c).
23
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.285(d).

69
preservation and discovery and methods of production.24 Counsel are encouraged to

bring any areas of disagreement to the courts for resolution early in a case. These issues

may also be addressed in a Rule 1.200 or Rule 1.201 case management conference.25

Specific mention of case management for electronically stored information is found in Rule

1.200, Fla. R. Civ. P.26 and in Rule 1.201 for cases that are declared complex.27 In

resolving these disputes courts must balance the need for legitimate discovery with

principles of proportionality and the just, speedy and efficient resolution of the case.28

LAW, POLICY, AND PRINCIPLES OF ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY : U

The complexity in application of discovery rules and policies to ESI and hardware

and media is creating a burgeoning body of common law, primarily in federal court.29
T

Case law in Florida on this subject is currently limited, but useful.30 Most importantly,

current Florida civil procedure rules for e-discovery were developed by selecting the best
T

of the federal rules and distilling Florida common law authority into practical and balanced

24
See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280, 2012 Committee Notes (“The parties should consider conferring with one another at the earliest
practical opportunity to discuss the reasonable scope of preservation and production of electronically stored information.”).
25
See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280, 2012 Committee Notes.
26
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200(a)(5)-(7).
27
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.201(b)(1)(J).
28
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.010; 1.280(d).
29
This chapter focuses on Florida state court e-discovery. Discussion of federal law herein is undertaken only because of the
availability of federal law for guidance in state court cases and is not intended to provide practitioners with a manual for discovery in
federal court cases. See supra n. 11.
30
See, e.g., Nucci v. Target Corp., supra n. 16 (no expectation of privacy in photos posted on Facebook regardless of privacy settings
used by producing party); Root v. Balfour Beatty Const., LLC, supra n. 17 (privacy interest in Facebook postings upheld against
overbroad request); Antico v. Sindt Trucking, Inc.,148 So. 3d 163 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (access to decedent’s iPhone granted to
determine whether she was texting during automobile accident in which she was killed); E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. v. Sidran,
140 So. 3d 620, 650 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (sanctions not appropriate for fraud on the court in the manner in which ESI was collected
and stored by defendant for discovery in multiple suits); Osmulski v. Oldsmar Fine Wine, Inc., 93 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012), rev.
den., 109 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 2013) (preservation obligations before case is filed are explained in this case); Holland v. Barfield, 35 So.
3d 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 6293; 35 Fla. L. Weekly D 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA May 7, 2010) (order granting opposing expert in wrongful
death case unrestricted access to review petitioner’s hard drive and SIM card quashed as violative of privacy); Menke v. Broward
County School Board, 916 So. 2d 8 (4th DCA 2005) (establishing basis and limits on access to opposing party’s hardware in order to
search for discoverable information); Strasser II: Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 783 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001) (spoliation of
electronic records); Strasser I: Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 669 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (designating Florida procedural rules
giving rise to discovery of ESI and the equipment that holds them and setting limits on scope of such discovery); Coleman (Parent)
Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. 2005 WL 674885, (Fla. Cir. Ct., 2005) (one of the best known e-discovery opinions in
the country, primarily because the sanctions for ESI spoliation resulted in a default judgment for $1.5 Billion. The judgment was
reversed on other grounds).

70
rules appropriate for the wide array of types and size of cases in Florida state courts that
T T TT

apply the civil rules.31 The rules provide a useful framework for anticipating and addressing T

prominent e-discovery issues. Based on the similarity between Florida and

federal rules, Florida trial courts are likely to refer to federal courts and the extensive

body of case law in the federal system32 as well as cases arising in states with rules similar

to Florida and federal rules. State court judges are also likely to be influenced by the

publications of The Sedona Conference®,33 a private research group of lawyers, judges

and e-discovery vendors dedicated to the development of standards and best practices

in this evolving field of law and policy. The Sedona Conference® writings have been

widely cited in the federal courts, especially its Sedona Principles,34 and Cooperation

Proclamation.35 Also especially helpful are its Glossary36 of e-discovery related terms,

and its commentaries on Search and Retrieval Methods,37 Achieving Quality,38 and

Litigation Holds.39 Many excellent text and trade publications, including free online

resources, are also available.40

31
See In re Amendments to the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure -- Electronic Discovery, supra n. 8.
32
See the following Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and accompanying rule commentary pertaining to the 2015 amendment: Rule
16(b), 26(a)(1)(B), 26(b)(2)(B), 26(f), 26(b)(5), 33, 34, 37(f) and 45. Also see the large and rapidly growing body of opinions by
United States Magistrate Judges and District Court Judges in Florida and elsewhere around the country. Federal law is far more
developed than Florida e-discovery law and provides useful guidance for lawyers and judges. That is not likely to change because
Florida trial court decisions are seldom published.
33
The Sedona Conference ® publications are all available online without charge for individual use. See
http://www.thesedonaconference.org/. As of 2013, judges have exclusive access to special judicial resources developed by The
Sedona Conference® which are based on the aforementioned Sedona Principles and writings but tailored to the judicial perspective.
Accordingly, lawyers who use, conform to, and cite pertinent materials from The Sedona Conference® will hopefully find judges
enlightened on relevant policies and principles referenced infra notes 32-37.
34
This can be downloaded after registration at:
http://www.thesedonaconference.org/dltForm?did=2007SummaryofSedonaPrinciples2ndEditionAug17assent forWG1.pdf.
35
See “The Sedona Conference® Cooperation Proclamation,” 10 Sedona Conf. J. 331 (2009 Supp.).
36
http://www.thesedonaconference.org/dltForm?did=TSCGlossary_12_07.pdf.
37
http://www.thesedonaconference.org/dltForm?did=Best_Practices_Retrieval_Methods_revised_cover_and preface.pdf.
38
http://www.thesedonaconference.org/dltForm?did=Achieving_Quality.pdf
39
http://www.thesedonaconference.org/dltForm?did=Legal_holds.pdf.
40
See e.g.: Ralph Losey’s weekly blog: e-discoveryteam found at http://www.e-discoveryteam.com and his several books and law
review articles on electronic discovery that are referenced there.

71
FRAMEWORK FOR THE TRIAL LAWYER FACING E-DISCOVERY : U

1. Familiarize yourself with the client’s electronic records and computer systems

used for storing this ESI, including how they are distributed, maintained,

deleted, and backed-up. If the client has a routine destruction policy for hard

copies, or also for ESI (and most companies now do), address the issue of

preservation immediately. Failure to preserve records, including ESI, may

result in severe sanctions for the client and possibly counsel.

2. Ensure that written preservation hold notices are provided by the client to any

key players within their control that instructs them to preserve any potentially

relevant ESI in their custody, and to not alter or destroy potentially relevant

ESI pending the conclusion of the lawsuit. Notice should also be provided to

third parties who are believed to hold or control ESI that is likely to be

relevant to issues in the case. Counsel should follow-up on these written

notices by prompt personal communications with key players, and then

periodic reminder notices thereafter. Caution should be exercised is relying

upon key players to locate or collect potentially relevant ESI. In some

circumstances such self-collection should not permitted, or should be

supplemented by bulk collection of all the custodian’s ESI. Today bulk

collection of all a custodian’s email within a certain date range is the rule in

all but small cases. Keyword filtering of bulk collection is also disfavored in all

but smaller cases because of the known unreliability of keywords and

concern that important evidence will be omitted. Mistakes are easily made in

ESI preservation and collection, and counsel has a personal duty to

72
 supervise the preservation, search and collection of potentially relevant ESI.

If counsel is not competent to carry out these responsibilities in a particular

matter, then they should affiliate with other counsel who are competent. The

hiring of non-law firm vendors in e-discovery cannot discharge an attorney’s

duty of competence and personal responsibility.

3. Inform the client of all obligations for discovery by both sides and develop a

plan to protect privileged or private information. Again, counsel should be

actively involved in client’s ESI preservation and collection efforts.

4. Work with the client and IT experts, if required, to develop a plan to collect

and review ESI for possible production, including a review for private,

privileged, or trade secret information that may be entitled to protection from

open disclosure. Determinations of responsiveness, relevance, or

qualification for confidentiality or privilege protections should not be

delegated to the client, IT expert, or vendor as these are uniquely legal

determinations for which counsel is responsible.

5. Determine the preferred format to make and receive production of ESI,

typically either in the original native format, which would necessarily include

all internal metadata of a document, or in some type of flat-file type PDF or

TIFF format, with a load file containing the file’s internal metadata. Metadata

is an inherent part of all ESI and should be included in most productions. The

removal of internal metadata from a document, which would include such

information as who created the document, the date of creation, last date it

was accessed, blind copy of an email, and the like, constitutes an alteration

73
 of the original electronic version of that document and is typically not desired

or necessary. If there is a particular type of metadata of concern to the

requesting or responding party, specific requests or objections should be

made.

6. Determine whether expert legal or technical assistance, or both, may be

needed to sort out legal or practical issues involving ESI and its media or

equipment. Reach out to opposing counsel early to attempt to coordinate

and cooperate on technical issues and set up lines of communication and

cooperation between the IT technicians that may be retained by both sides to

assist in the e-discovery efforts. It may be appropriate for the parties to retain

third-party neutral experts in some cases with unusual or complex technical

issues, or other e-discovery challenges, such as search of large disorganized

collections of ESI.

7. Find out what information may be discoverable from the opponent and

seek disclosure of their preservation efforts and intended production formats,

and what ESI they will seek discovery of, including their metadata demands,

if any. Send a request for the opponent to preserve electronically stored

information as soon as possible and include a formal discovery request for

such information at the earliest possible date.41

8. Evaluate the reasonability and suitability of the opponent’s preservation,

collection, and production plans, including any search or production issues,

and attempt early resolution of any disputes. This should be accomplished

before any large productions are actually made so as to avoid expensive do-
41
Osmulski, supra n. 29 (preservation obligations may occur before case is filed).

74
 overs. Beware of preservation, collection, and search based on keyword

matching alone. This approach is frequently ineffective and far better

technological solutions are now available.42 When keyword terms are used

as part of a search and review protocol they should always be carefully

tested, and should never be negotiated in the blind based on mere intuition

by counsel that they will include most of the relevant evidence.

9. Determine whether discoverable ESI is available from multiple sources,

including third parties. Frequently ESI documents, such as e-mail or draft

contracts that have been communicated to or handled by multiple parties will

contain useful additional or even conflicting information. Some sources of

information are more accessible than others, meaning they are easier or less

costly to access. Upon a proper showing under the rules, parties must be

required to obtain information from the least burdensome source, and the

court must limit unreasonably cumulative or duplicative discovery.43

10. Weigh the cost of ESI discovery and determine whether costs may be shifted

to protect the client or whether the cost of discovery outweighs the potential

benefit.44

11. Electronic discovery is typically conducted in phases wherein the most easily

accessible and likely relevant ESI are searched and produced first, and then

the necessity for further discovery is evaluated. Limiting factors for the first

42
William A. Gross Construction Associates, Inc. v. American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co., 256 F.R.D. 134, 136 (S.D.N.Y.
2009); Losey, R. Adventures in Electronic Discovery, Chapter Child’s Game of “Go Fish” is a Poor Model for e-Discovery Search,
(West Thomson Reuters, 2011); Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, 2012 WL 607412 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012).
43
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d) (the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules if it determines
that the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from another source or in another manner
that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive).
44
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(1); (d)(2).

75
 pass include accessibility, date range, custodians, volume, and secondary

ESI storage.

12. Ensure to the extent possible that the value of the discovery sought and

produced is proportional in the context of the case at hand.45

13. If any of the foregoing steps require expert consultation or assistance, find a

suitable expert and involve the expert early enough in the process that

preservation obligations for the client and opponent are timely invoked.46

Again, parties should consider the advisability of sharing a neutral third-party

expert, which can realize substantial cost and time savings.

DUTIES OF ATTORNEY AND CLIENT REGARDING PRESERVATION OF ESI : U

Electronically stored information is by its very nature ephemeral and easily

transportable, so it can be instantaneously lost, altered, destroyed, or hidden.

Understanding the duties regarding preservation of evidence is vital to those who possess

or control evidence and those who seek to use it in litigation.47 The Florida state court

common law of preservation is unique48 and somewhat unsettled, increasing the challenge

for lawyers advising their clients on preservation duty. In general, a duty to preserve in

Florida can arise from many sources, including court orders, subpoenas, government

regulations, statutes, contracts, discovery requests, and common law. Some Florida courts

have held that a duty to preserve evidence is triggered by contract, by statute, or by a

45
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(d)(2)(ii).
46
For preservation triggers, see Osmulski, supra n. 29; Gayer v. Fine Line Constr. & Elec., Inc., 970 So. 2d 424, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA
2007).
47
Loss of evidence can be devastating to the party whose case would benefit from lost evidence; but a person or party holding
relevant evidence make likewise suffer through sanctions if the evidence is lost or destroyed.
48
Florida law on triggering of the duty to preserve is unlike federal court law and virtually every other state court jurisdiction. In
federal court, and in many other jurisdictions, a party in control of relevant evidence is obligated to preserve it if there is reasonable
anticipation of litigation.

76
properly served discovery request once a lawsuit has already been filed.49 In fact, a number

of Florida cases have expressly held that, absent a contractual or statutory duty, there is no

duty to preserve evidence before litigation commences.50 However, a few Florida cases

somewhat inconsistently appear to recognize a pre-suit obligation to preserve evidence

where the party controlling evidence can reasonably foresee a claim and the relevance of

the evidence.51 For counsel advising clients on preservation duty, notwithstanding these

conflicts, or perhaps because of them, it makes sense to advise the client to preserve

rather than dispose of relevant evidence, even if suit has not been filed. First, some cases

may be filed in either state or federal court, and reliance on a perceived lack of pre-suit duty

to preserve under Florida law will not succeed in federal court where the duty to preserve is

triggered when litigation is reasonably anticipated. Second, there may be a statutory or

contractual obligation to preserve that is not apparent at the time advice is rendered. Third,

a finding of spoliation against client or counsel is indeed a serious outcome and may have

ramifications beyond the case at issue.

A common e-discovery issue for parties and counsel is the “scope” of evidence that

must be preserved. Virtually all cases involve decision-making on the time frame for

preservation, the substantive content which determines whether documents are relevant,

and the breadth of places in which relevant evidence may be found. In large cases, parties

may delineate preservation by persons who are likely to have relevant information, often

49
See, e.g., Royal & Sunalliance v. Lauderdale Marine Center, 877 So. 2d 843, 845 (4th DCA 2004).
50
Id. (holding that "we find Royal's argument that there was a common law duty to preserve the evidence in anticipation of litigation to be
without merit"); Gayer v. Fine Line Constr. & Electric, Inc., supra n. 45 at 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)(holding that "[b]ecause a duty to
preserve evidence does not exist at common law, the duty must originate either in a contract, a statute, or a discovery request"); In re:
Electric Machinery Enterprises, Inc., 416 B.R. 801, 873 (M.D. Fla. 2009)(“The majority of Florida courts have held that there is no
common law duty to preserve evidence before litigation has commenced”).
51
See Osmulski, supra n. 29 at 393, citing American Hospitality Management Co. of Minnesota v. Hettiger, 904 So. 2d 547, 549 (Fla. 4th
DCA 2005)(where a defendant has evidence within its control, it can "be charged with a duty to preserve evidence where it could
reasonably have foreseen the [plaintiff's] claim."). This is also the federal rule on when a duty to preserve is triggered.

77
called “custodians” as they have personal custody of the ESI by virtue of it being their email

account, text message account, etc.

The very breadth of reasonably required preservation may raise issues of burden

and cost. However, in applying proportionality to limit discovery duties, counsel must be

careful to distinguish between scope of preservation versus scope of production.

Preservation occurs at a point in time in which potential issues may not be crystallized and

the relevance of certain documents may be fuzzy or indeterminable. Counsel and parties

should usually err on the side of preservation, at least until the relevance picture sufficiently

clarifies to safely distinguish that which must be preserved and produced. While some

federal cases have expressed the principle that scope of preservation efforts may be

guided by reasonableness and proportionality,52 other federal courts disagree.53 In any

event, counsel should advise a client to put a litigation hold in place and undertake

reasonable efforts to identify and preserve evidence that is relevant by discovery

standards.54

As for counsel’s duties with regard to preservation of evidence, the seminal federal

case was written by Manhattan District Court Judge, Shira Scheindlin. It is actually a

series of opinions written in the same case, collectively known as Zubulake, after the

52
See, e.g., Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D. 497, 523 (D. Md. Sep. 9, 2010); Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v.
Cammarata, 688 F. Supp. 2d 598, 613 (S.D. Tex. 2010)(“Whether preservation or discovery conduct is acceptable in a case
depends on what is reasonable, and that in turn depends on whether what was done--or not done--was proportional to that case and
consistent with clearly established applicable standards”).
53
Orbit One Communications, Inc. v. Ronsen, 271 F.R.D. 429; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123633 (S.D. N.Y. 2010)(“Although some
cases have suggested that the definition of what must be preserved should be guided by principles of "reasonableness and
proportionality," [citations to Victor Stanley and Rimkus omitted], this standard may prove too amorphous to provide much comfort to
a party deciding what files it may delete or backup tapes it may recycle.”).
54
Information on preservation advice and litigation holds in Florida state court litigation is found in Ch. 5, Initial Procedures in E-
Discovery and Preservation of Evidence in Florida State Court, Artigliere & Hamilton, LexisNexis Practice Guide Florida E-
Discovery and Evidence, LexisNexis/Matthew Bender (2012) available from LexisNexis and from The Florida Bar.

78
plaintiff, Laura Zubulake. There are four key opinions in this series.55 These decisions are

widely known by both federal and state judges and practitioners around the country.

Judge Scheindlin’s last opinion, Zubulake V, has had the greatest impact upon

federal courts and is also starting to have an impact on state courts, including Florida. In

Zubulake V, Judge Scheindlin held that outside legal counsel has a duty to make

certain that their client’s ESI is identified and placed on hold. This new duty on attorneys

was created because of the unusual nature and characteristics of ESI and information

technology systems in which ESI is stored. Unlike paper documents, ESI can be easily

modified or deleted, both intentionally and unintentionally. In many IT systems, especially

those employed by medium to large size enterprises, ESI is automatically and routinely

deleted and purged from the IT systems. Special actions must be taken by the client with

such IT systems to suspend these normal ESI deletion procedures after litigation is

reasonably anticipated.

Here are the words of Judge Scheindlin in Zubulake V that have frequently been

relied upon to sanction attorneys who either unwittingly, or sometimes on purpose,

failed to take any affirmative steps to advise and supervise their clients to stop the

automatic destruction of ESI:

Counsel must become fully familiar with their client’s

documents retention policies as well as the client’s data
retention architecture. This will invariably involve
speaking with information technology personnel, who
can explain system wide back up procedures in the
actual (as opposed to theoretical) implementation of the
firm’s recycling policy it will also involve communicating
with the key players in the litigation, in order to
understand how they store information.56

55
Zubulake v UBS Warburg LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (Zubulake III); Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212
(S.D.N.Y. 2003) (Zubulake IV); and Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (Zubulake V).
56
Zubulake V, supra n. 54 at 432.

79
 Of course, a party to litigation has a duty to preserve evidence in all forms, paper or
T

ESI, and the bad faith failure to do so may constitute actionable spoliation. This is nothing

new.57 But the extension of this duty to the litigants’ outside legal counsel in

Zubulake V, which is sometimes called the “Zubulake Duty,” is fairly new and

controversial.58 Although the “Zubulake Duty” has been accepted by many federal judges

in Florida and elsewhere, it is unknown whether Florida state court judges will also impose

such a duty upon attorneys. However, in view of the popularity in the federal system of

placing this burden on the counsel of record, a prudent state court practitioner should also

assume that they have such a duty.59 Outside legal counsel should be proactive in

communicating with their client and otherwise taking steps to see to it that the client

institutes a litigation hold. Obviously, Judge Scheindlin does not intend to convert

attorneys into guarantors of their client’s conduct. She also notes in Zubulake V that if

attorneys are diligent, and they properly investigate and communicate, they should not be

held responsible for their client’s failures:

A lawyer cannot be obliged to monitor her client like a

parent watching a child. At some point, the client must
bear responsibility for a failure to preserve.60

57
See Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 908 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 2005); Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So. 2d 777, 781 (Fla. 4th DCA
2006).
58
See Metro. Opera Ass’n Inc. v. Local 100, Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Int’l Union, 212 F.R.D. 178, 218-219
(S.D.N.Y. 2003); but see Thomas Allman, Deterring E-Discovery Misconduct By Counsel Sanctions: The Unintended Consequences
of Qualcomm v. Broadcom, 118 Yale L.J. Pocket Part 161 (2009).
59
Like their federal counterparts, Florida judges have statutory, rule-based, and inherent authority to sanction parties and their
counsel for discovery violations and for spoliation. Judges are taught to seek out the source of the problem and administer a
measured sanction that remedies the wrong committed. If the party is not the culprit, it makes little sense to administer the sanction
against an innocent participant. See Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492, (Fla. 2004)(dismissal based solely on an attorney's neglect
in a manner that unduly punishes a litigant espouses a policy that the Supreme Court of Florida does not wish to promote). Florida
courts are not averse to applying appropriate sanctions to counsel. Id. at 498 (a trial court "unquestionably has power to discipline
counsel" for discovery violations).
60
Zubulake V, supra n. 54 at 433.

80
However, counsel is obligated to have sufficient knowledge of client’s IT systems to allow

counsel to competently supervise the client’s evidence preservation efforts, or lacking such

knowledge and competence, should retain experts who do.

The duty to preserve of client and counsel requires a corporate client in most
T T

circumstances to provide a written litigation hold notice to its employees who may be

involved in the lawsuit, or who may otherwise have custody or control of computers and

other ESI storage devices with information relevant to the lawsuit. The notice should

instruct them not to alter or destroy such ESI. The potential witnesses to the case

should be instructed to construe their duty to preserve ESI broadly and reminded that the

ESI may be located in many different computers and ESI storage systems, including for

instance, desktop computers, laptops, server storage, CDs, DVDs, flash drives, home

computers, iPods, iPads, iPhones, blackberries, Internet storage webs (cloud computing),

social media accounts, Internet e-mail accounts, voice mail, etc. The client’s IT department

or outside company should also be notified and instructed to modify certain auto-deletion

features of the IT system that could otherwise delete potentially relevant evidence. In

some cases, it may also be necessary to preserve backup tapes, but this is generally not

required, especially if the relevant information on the tapes is likely just duplicative.61

There should be reasonable follow-up to the written notice, including conferences

with the key players and IT personnel.

Judge Scheindlin wrote another opinion on the subject of litigation holds and ESI

spoliation, which she refers to as her sequel to Zubulake.62 Pension Committee provides

61
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212, 218 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) (Zubulake IV); also see Rule 37(e) Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
62
The Pension Committee of the University of Montreal Pension Plan, et al. v. Banc of America Securities, et al., 2010 WL 184312,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4546 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010).

81
further guidance to federal and state courts on preservation issues, and the related issues

of sanctions. Judge Scheindlin holds that the following failures to preserve evidence

constitute gross negligence and thus should often result in sanctions of some kind:

After a discovery duty is well established, the failure to

adhere to contemporary standards can be considered
gross negligence. Thus, after the final relevant
Zubulake opinion in July, 2004, the following failures
support a finding of gross negligence, when the duty to
preserve has attached: to issue a written litigation hold,
to identify the key players and to ensure that their
electronic and paper records are preserved, to cease
the deletion of email or to preserve the records of
former employees that are in a party’s possession,
custody, or control, and to preserve backup tapes when
they are the sole source of relevant information or when
they relate to key players, if the relevant information
maintained by those players is not obtainable from
readily accessible sources.

Judge Scheindlin goes on to hold that “parties need to anticipate and undertake

document preservation with the most serious and thorough care, if for no other reason

than to avoid the detour of sanctions.”63 Counsel should document their efforts to prove

reasonableness in the event mistakes are made and relevant ESI deleted, despite best

efforts. In any large ESI preservation, collection and production, some errors are inevitable,

and Judge Scheindlin notes this on several occasions in Pension Committee, including the

opening paragraph where she observes:

In an era where vast amounts of electronic information

is available for review, discovery in certain cases has
become increasingly complex and expensive. Courts
cannot and do not expect that any party can meet a
standard of perfection.

This is an important point to remember. The volume and complexity of ESI makes

perfection impossible and mistakes commonplace. All that Judge Scheindlin and other
63
Id.

82
jurors and scholars in this field expect from the parties to litigation and their attorneys are

good faith, diligent, and reasonable efforts. In Pension Committee, Judge Scheindlin found

that the parties did not make reasonable diligent efforts, and so entered sanctions against

them with the words:

While litigants are not required to execute document

productions with absolute precision, at a minimum they
must act diligently and search thoroughly at the time
they reasonably anticipate litigation. All of the plaintiffs
in this motion failed to do so and have been sanctioned
accordingly.

The opinion of Judge Scheindlin in Zubulake V and the Pension Committee cases

provide a road map to practitioners on what needs to be done in order to preserve

ESI from destruction, either intentional or accidental, and so avoid sanctions for

spoliation. These and hundreds of other cases like it in the federal system are quite likely

to be referred to and cited in state court proceedings. Although none of these federal

cases are binding upon state court system, many judges find them persuasive, and the

federal cases will often at least provide a starting point for further argument.

FLORIDA’S “SAFE HARBOR” PROVISION

Many organizations have standard policies and procedures by which outdated and

unnecessary electronically stored information is routinely deleted for purposes of economy,

efficiency, security, or other valid business or organizational purposes. Florida followed the

lead of the federal rules64 by adopting a safe harbor provision to clarify that a party should

not be sanctioned for the loss of electronic evidence due to the routine, good-faith

operation of an electronic information system.65 The existence of a “good faith” component

64
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e) (2006). The federal rule has been amended, effective December 1, 2015.
65
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380(e).

83
prevents a party from exploiting the routine operation of an information system to thwart

discovery obligations by allowing that operation to destroy information that party is required

to preserve or produce. In determining good faith, the court may consider any steps taken

by the party to comply with court orders, party agreements, or requests to preserve such

information.66

COLLECTION AND REVIEW OF ESI : U

After counsel and litigants are satisfied the ESI has been preserved from

destruction, and often as part of those efforts, the potentially relevant ESI should then be

carefully collected. This requires copying of the computer files in a manner that does not

alter or delete relevant information, which typically includes the metadata in or associated

with the ESI (such as file name). Self-collection by the custodians themselves may be a

dangerous practice in some circumstances due to their technical limitations and increased

risk of accidental or intentional deletion of electronic evidence.67 They are, for instance,

quite likely to unintentionally change a computer file’s metadata since opening a file, or

simple copying of a file, will usually change many metadata fields. These altered metadata

fields may prove of importance to the case. They are also likely to have a wrong

understanding of what documents might be relevant for discovery purposes, typically

adopting an over-narrow construction or otherwise not understanding the meaning of legal

relevance Also, as mentioned, keyword search based collection is hazardous, and should

be avoided unless necessary in small cases for proportionality purposes to reduce the

expense of review.68 When keywords are used, they should be carefully tested in advance

66
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380 Committee Notes, 2012 Amendment.
67
National Day Laborer Organizing Network et al. v. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency, et al., 2012
U.S. Dist. Lexis 97863 (SDNY, July 13, 2012) (J. Scheindlin).
68
See n. 41 supra.

84
to evaluate efficacy and multiple refinements should be considered, typically Boolean logic

combinations (and, or, but not, within a certain number of words, etc) and parametric

limitations (keywords in specific fields of a document, as opposed to anywhere).

After collection, the ESI is typically processed to eliminate redundant duplicates and

prepare the ESI for viewing. Full horizontal deduplication across all custodians is now

typically used in all matters. The ESI is then searched for relevancy, and the smaller subset

of potentially relevant ESI is then reviewed for final relevancy determinations as well as for

privilege and confidentiality. Only after this review is production made to the requesting

party.

TEN PRACTICAL STEPS FOR HANDLING ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE69

1. Plan carefully to secure the client’s relevant electronic evidence and to

obtain evidence from the opponent or third parties. Electronically stored information

(ESI) is volatile and may be altered, corrupted, or lost by human accident or error, by

malicious intentional conduct, or through the automated operation of computers.

2. Plan carefully before and during discovery to obtain and to secure the

foundation needed to admit evidence. Frequently, foundation is available in the form of

metadata or other electronically stored information such as the file path, which may be

available for a limited time and is volatile, alterable, or corruptible. Foundation may also be

obtained through testimony or ancillary ESI or information about the equipment or software

associated with the ESI. Many times such information or testimony is readily available only

for a limited time. Plan for the admission of electronically stored information in the collection

69
Artigliere, R. and Hamilton, W., LEXISNEXIS® PRACTICE GUIDE: FLORIDA E-DISCOVERY AND EVIDENCE, §1.05 (2015).

85
process. Manage the opposition so that the produced information will contain foundational

information.

3. Request admission of the authenticity and admissibility of ESI whenever

possible. Obtaining admissions on admissibility is not only economical; it saves drudgery

and wasting of time during trial which can alienate the jury or judge.

4. When in doubt, err on the side of preservation. The scope of preservation and

the timing of when preservation is triggered are based upon the circumstances of the case.

Reasonable counsel may differ. However, the “down side” of potential sanctions against a

client and attorney who fail to preserve electronic evidence or who engage in spoliation are

universally less acceptable than the burden of preservation. If preservation appears overly

burdensome, seek judicial assistance in advance under the doctrine of proportionality.

Seeking forgiveness after destruction of evidence is not a reasonable strategy.

5. Use summaries and charts rather than voluminous printouts when

presenting evidence to the trier of fact. The rules permit the admission of a summary

document distilling of numerous and obscure documents into a cogent and organized chart

if the chart is accurately based on admissible evidence, is introduced by a qualified witness

and properly noticed, and will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence.

Presenting important evidence in organized form is much better than relying on a jury to

locate information in a maze of exhibits.

6. Check public sources or social media. Information may be readily available

from the Internet and especially social media. Valuable information may be retrievable

outside formal discovery without alerting the opponent. When copying such media try to

capture as much metadata as possible and document when the information was captured.

86
The capture of a website as a PDF file will have its own metadata that may be used to

demonstrate the capture time and date.

7. Use competent and effective witnesses to obtain publically available

evidence. Frequently authentication of evidence will require a witness to testify about the

manner in which the evidence was obtained and the device or software associated with the

creation, modification, transmission, or storage of the ESI. Professional investigators with

E-Discovery credentials and experience are good candidates for investigations of social

networking websites, and conducting self-help E-Discovery. The receipt and management

of ESI production from the opposition should be supervised by persons with adequate

testifying witness skills.

8. Curb the client’s self-help efforts by delineating strict boundaries of

behavior. While self-help and self-collection may be desirable for the client economically,

the client must understand the risks of inadequate of improper collections. An unbiased,

technically competent expert may be the best person to collect the electronic evidence. A

competent investigator can then authenticate the collected information at trial or hearings.

In no case should the client illegally obtain evidence, misappropriate a password, or access

information through subversion or artifice.

9. Advise the client of preservation obligations and warn against loss,

alteration, or destruction of ESI. Sanctions can arise from behavior the client (or

attorney) considers routine. For example, removing injudicious Facebook entries after

preservation is triggered may be considered spoliation if a copy of the Facebook entries as

they appeared before removal was not preserved.

87
 10. Cooperate with opposing counsel concerning the admissibility of

electronic evidence. All parties are well advised to exchange information and to anticipate

and resolve by agreement as many electronic evidence issues as possible. The

downstream costs associated with incorrect E-Discovery decisions and errors are

substantial and occasionally case dispositive. Cooperation by counsel on such matters is a

sign of strength, professionalism, and competency.

“SELF-HELP” DISCOVERY

Self-help discovery refers to the informal search and collection of electronically

stored information outside the formal discovery process. Valuable information may be

accessed without alerting the opponent or witnesses from whom or about whom the

information is collected. A simple example of self-help discovery is obtaining information

available on the internet about a party, witness, opposing counsel, issue in the case,

industry or organization, or obtaining facts pertaining to the case. Using a Google or other

search engine or a service or accessing social media70 to get publicly available information

through self-help methods can be cost-effective if properly done, but there are some

caveats and cautions.

As with any collection of ESI for use in litigation, copying of the computer files should

be done in a manner that does not alter or delete relevant information, such as contextual

material or the metadata in or associated with the ESI. Self-collection by attorneys,

attorney staff, or clients may be a dangerous practice due to technical limitations and

increased risk of accidental or intentional deletion of electronic evidence. Further, the

person who searches, finds, and collects information may end up being a witness to

introduce the information. If the information is important enough to the litigation, it should be
70
See DISCOVERY OF SOCIAL MEDIA ESI infra.

88
properly collected, stored, and preserved properly, and the collection should include

information necessary for ultimate introduction of the ESI into evidence. This may require

sophisticated or expert involvement.

Example: In an employment case, your employee client finds a government

website that contains data in a spreadsheet form about the employer’s industry that

are relevant to issues in the case. The client takes a “screenshot” of the portions of

the spreadsheet that apply to the employer and brings it to you. You put the

information in your file in paper form for potential use in the case. What other steps

may be considered with regard to this evidence? Answer: At this point, the file

contains essentially a “picture” of a portion of ESI, so the client may ultimately need

to testify at a minimum that the screenshot is a true and accurate depiction of what

appeared on the website on the date and time of the screenshot. The client as well

as the completeness and accuracy of the document are subject to challenge and

cross-examination unless there is an admission on authenticity or admissibility from

the opposing party. Spreadsheets may contain metadata, internal calculations,

footnotes, and other information that may be essential to the case. The data on the

government website may change at any time or may not otherwise be available in

the future, so a full and proper collection should be done right away by a

sophisticated person, including contextual information and metadata. If necessary,

use competent and effective witnesses to obtain publically available evidence.

Proper collection, storage, and preservation of databases and spreadsheets can be

technically challenging.

89
 Self-help collection of information that is not clearly public information can be

problematic. Self-help is only productive if it is done within the law.71 Efforts to access a

computer or device of a party or witness or a person’s email account may lead to sanctions

or challenges on admissibility72 and potential disqualification of counsel in egregious cases,

as where counsel has accessed privileged documents of the opposing party.73 One basis

for disqualification counsel is if counsel has obtained privileged documents of the opposing

party.74

Social media is a prolific source of information and a potential candidate for self-help

discovery. Counsel should be familiar with the technology and characteristics of social

media so as to be able to properly find, collect, and preserve information. For example, if

discretion is needed when getting information from a party or witness’ LinkedIn account, it

is important to know that the target person will know who viewed their account unless the

requesting person’s LinkedIn settings are set to not disclose such access. Another example

involves privacy settings on Facebook. Only limited information is available about a

Facebook subscriber except for persons accepted as “Friends.” However, it may be

unethical to “Friend” an opposing party or witness for the sole purpose of extracting

additional information from them on Facebook.75 It may be necessary to request

71
O’Brien v. O’Brien, 899 So. 2d 1133, 1137–38 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005)(where wife installed spyware on her husband’s computer and
retrieved the husband’s on-line chats with other women, the trial judge correctly ruled that the evidence was not admissible because
the conversations were illegally intercepted under the Security of Communications Act, Fla. Stat. § 934.03).
72
Id. Attorneys implicated in such improper behavior may be subject to discipline. Fla. Bar v. Black, 121 So. 3d 1038 (Fla.
2013)(attorney reprimanded for obtaining and keeping opposing party’s iPhone which contained confidential and privileged
information).
73
Castellano v. Winthrop, 27 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010)(attorney disqualified after client illegally obtained opposing party
privileged information and provided it to her attorney). The assessment and remedies vary depending on the findings and
circumstances of the case after an evidentiary hearing to determine (1) whether counsel for a party possessed privileged materials,
(2) the circumstances under which disclosure occurred, and (3) whether obtaining the privileged materials gave counsel an unfair
advantage on material matters in the case. Id.
74
Id.
75
See The Philadelphia Bar Assoc. Professional Guidance Committee, Op. 2009-2 (Mar. 2009). Presumably the decision in Florida
would be the same under Florida Rules. See Fla. R. of Prof. Cond. 4-4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others) and 4-4.4 (Respect
for Rights of Third Persons).

90
information subject to Facebook privacy settings through formal rather than self-help

discovery.76

CONFERRING WITH OPPOSING COUNSEL : U

Counsel are well advised to speak with each other at the commencement of the
T T

case concerning the preferred methods and format of production,77 including topics as to

what metadata fields are desired by the requesting party and the proposed preservation,

culling, and search methods. Counsel should also discuss confidentiality concerns and

attempt to reach agreement on these issues, as well as the related issues concerning the

consequences of the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information. It is now common in

the federal system for parties to enter into “Claw-Back” agreements protecting both sides

from waiver from unintentional disclosure.78 Florida now has a nearly identical rule that

went into effect on January 1, 2011, in the form of Rule 1.285, Florida Rules of Civil

Procedure (Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged Materials). Clawback Agreements under

the Florida Rule are anticipated and should be encouraged by courts and strengthened by

court order. Since these agreements and protections are completely reciprocal, it is difficult

to foresee legitimate grounds for opposition to this important safety net.

INSPECTION OF CLIENT COMPUTERS AND EQUIPMENT :

U U

One important issue in e-discovery concerning the limits on forensic examinations of

a party’s computers has already been addressed in Florida.79 It follows without discussion,

or much mention, a large body of federal and foreign state case law on the subject. Menke

76
Nucci, supra n. 16 (a personal injury case plaintiff’s photographs on Facebook are discoverable regardless of privacy settings
because there is no expectation of privacy for such information posted to others on Facebook).
77
See Rule 34(b)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, governing form of production. This essentially requires production of ESI in
its original native format, or in another “reasonably useable” format, at the producer’s choice, unless the request specifies the form.
78
See Rule 26(b)(5)(B), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Rule 502, Federal Rules of Evidence.
79
Menke v. Broward County School Board, 916 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).

91
holds consistent with this law and protects a responding party from over-intrusive
T

inspections of its computer systems by the requesting party.80 The law generally requires

a showing of good cause before such an inspection is allowed. The rules, both state

and federal, only intend for parties, or third-parties, to make production of the ESI stored on

electronic devices, not the devices themselves. This is a common novice mistake.

Generally, the actual devices are only subject to inspection in unusual cases where you

can prove that the party’s search and production has not been reasonably or honestly

performed or other even more rare circumstances.81 The background and reasoning for this

law are set out well in Menke:

Today, instead of filing cabinets filled with paper

documents, computers store bytes of information in an
“electronic filing cabinet.” Information from that cabinet
can be extracted, just as one would look in the filing
cabinet for the correct file containing the information
being sought. In fact, even more information can be
extracted, such as what internet sites an individual
might access as well as the time spent in internet chat
rooms. In civil litigation, we have never heard of a
discovery request which would simply ask a party
litigant to produce its business or personal filing
cabinets for inspection by its adversary to see if they
contain any information useful to the litigation.
Requests for production ask the party to produce
copies of the relevant information in those filing
cabinets for the adversary.
Menke contends that the respondent’s representative’s
wholesale access to his personal computer will expose
confidential communications and matters entirely

80
See: Peskoff v. Faber, 2008 WL 2649506 (D.D.C. July 7, 2008); Bro-Tech Corp. v. Thermax, Inc., 2008 WL 724627 (E.D. Pa.
March 17, 2008); Sterle v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., 2008 WL 961216 (D. Conn. Apr. 9, 2008); Xpel Technologies Corp. v. Am. Filter
Film Distribs; 2008 WL 744837 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2008); Henry v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 2008 WL 474127 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 15,
2008); In re Honza, 2007 WL 4591917 (Tex. App. Dec. 28, 2007); Coburn v. PN II, Inc., 2008 WL 879746 (D. Nev. Mar. 28, 2008);
Ferron v. Search Cactus, LLC, 2008 WL 1902499 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2008); Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 2008
WL 2142219 (D. Nev. May 16, 2008); Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Davis, 2006 WL 3837518 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 28, 2006); Hedenburg
v. Aramark American Food Services, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3443 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2007); In re Ford Motor Co., 345 F.3d 1315,
1316 (11th Cir. 2003); Ameriwood v. Liberman, 2006 WL 3825291, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93380 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 27, 2006).
81
Menke supra n. 78 at 12. See also Antico, supra note 16 discussed below (defense made a showing of need for information on
iPhone and plaintiff offered no less intrusive means for providing relevant information).

92
 extraneous to the present litigation, such as banking
records. Additionally, privileged communications, such
as those between Menke and his attorney concerning
the very issues in the underlying proceeding, may be
exposed. Furthermore, Menke contends that his
privacy is invaded by such an inspection, and his Fifth
Amendment right may also be implicated by such an
intrusive review by the opposing expert.82

The appeals court agreed with Menke and granted certiorari to quash the

administrative law judge’s order requiring production of Menke’s computers. The court held

that production and search of a computer is to be conducted by the producing party so as

to protect their confidential information. Menke suggests that the production of the

computer itself is a last resort only justified “in situations where evidence of intentional

deletion of data was present.”83 The Menke court concluded with these words, which also

seem a good note on which to end this article:

Because the order of the administrative law judge

allowed the respondent’s expert access to literally
everything on the petitioner’s computers, it did not
protect against disclosure of confidential and privileged
information. It therefore caused irreparable harm, and
we grant the writ and quash the discovery order under
review. We do not deny the Board the right to request
that the petitioner produce relevant, non-privileged,
information; we simply deny it unfettered access to the
petitioner’s computers in the first instance. Requests
should conform to discovery methods and manners
provided within the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Disclosure of confidential information is not the only potential harm when a party is

permitted access to the opposing party’s computers. Another consideration relating to a

request for access to the client’s computers, equipment, or software is the potential of

harm to the client’s hardware, software, and data. Any foray permitted by the court must

82
Id. at 10.
83
Id. at 8.

93
balance the need for the level of access sought versus the potential harm to the party

producing access. This is another reason for using neutral, qualified experts to assist in

discovery.

One infrequent exception to the high bar protecting access to a party’s computer or

personal device may be when there is a showing that the device may contain relevant

information, and there is no less intrusive means of discovery other than access to the

device. In Antico v. Sindt Trucking, Inc.,84 evidence was presented in a wrongful death auto

negligence case that showed that the decedent-driver was texting or talking on her iPhone

at the time of the automobile accident at issue in the case. Over vague “privacy” objections,

the trial judge ordered that the defense (requesting party) expert could examine the

information on the decedent’s iPhone over a 9-hour period around the accident, but the

order strictly controlled how the confidential inspection must proceed.85 The first district

upheld the order as a proper balance of the need for the discovery and protection of privacy

interests.86 However, the decision of the appellate court was apparently influenced by the

plaintiff’s failure to advance any less intrusive alternatives for discovery than access as

prescribed by the trial court.87

REQUESTING PRODUCTION AND MAKING PRODUCTION OF ESI:

Effective September 1, 2012, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure establish a

workable framework for production of electronically stored information. The most prominent

issue for production of ESI involves the form of production, which can implicate the

completeness and utility of the ESI produced as well of the cost of production if the ESI

84
Antico, supra n. 16.
85
Antico, supra n. 16 at 167 (“[the trial court’s order] limits the data that the expert may review to the nine-hour period immediately
surrounding the accident; it gives Petitioner's counsel a front-row seat to monitor the inspection process; and it allows Petitioner the
opportunity to interpose objections before Respondents can obtain any of the data.”
86
Id.
87
Id. at 168.

94
must be translated or converted into the requested form. Fortunately, the rules

contemplate these issues as will be discussed below. Nonetheless, the most prudent

course for counsel on both sides is to confer and cooperate on the form of production

beforehand to avoid disappointment, non-productive effort, and needless cost of repeated

production.

A request for electronically stored information may specify the form or forms in which

electronically stored information is to be produced.88 The form should usually be specified.

The requesting party should take into account the reasons for specifying a given form, such

as: (1) Will the document’s native functionality be needed, such as a spreadsheet’s

embedded calculations? (2) Will the native form89 of the document be needed in order to

determine the context in which the document was created or stored? (3) What are the

format requirements of the software that the requesting party plans to use to review the

production?

If the responding party objects to a requested form, or if no form is specified in the

request, the responding party must state the form or forms it intends to use.90 This is a

quite sensible provision that essentially directs the parties to address any issues in the form

of production. For example, if a responding party specifies a form of production and the

requesting party fails to object to the form of production, the court has a meaningful record

on which to determine whether production in another format will be required and which

party should be required to pay the cost of the additional production. If a request for

electronically stored information does not specify the form of production, the producing
88
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350(b).
89
Native format is a copy of the original electronic file. For example, e-mail from an Outlook e-mail program would be produced in a *.pst
file. Native format files include the metadata of the original file. Native format files also are easy to modify. This presents difficulties in
ensuring that the data has not altered after being produced. Cooperation of counsel and well-documented procedures are required to
allow effective use of native format evidence at depositions and trial.
90
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350(b).

95
party must produce the information in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or

in a reasonably usable form or forms, which is almost always the native format.91 Again,

this is a sensible process that tells the producing party that they are not permitted to

degrade or convert the electronic documents to a less useful format for production.92

Example: Party A requests Party B’s discoverable emails in native format. Party B’s

attorney dislikes using electronic forms in handling discovery and evidence, so he

requests a printed copies of every one of Party B’s several thousand emails and

sends a copy to Party A. When Party A objects, the attorney for Party B states that

he has given up every email (which, of course includes everything that would be

relevant or discoverable) and “you have everything I have.” Is this adequate

production under the rules? Answer: No. Party B’s attorney should have objected to

the requested form (native) rather than producing in another form without involving

Party A or the Court in the decision.93 While technically every discoverable email

may be included in the production, the printed out versions do not contain metadata,

which may be discoverable. In addition, the printed version is not “reasonably

usable” because a non-electronic version is not searchable, which can be a valuable

tool with large numbers and volumes of emails. Party A, having made a proper

request, is entitled to receive the emails in the form requested unless there is an

objection followed by an agreement by the parties or court determination on form. In

a sense, production of all the emails rather than discoverable emails can be a form

of “data dump” exacerbated by the lack of ability to electronically search, sort, de-

duplicate, and manage the information. The dispute may have been avoided if Party
91
Id. ESI is usually “ordinarily maintained” in its native format, meaning the format used by the software in which the ESI was created.
92
Such an effort would be equivalent to the unsavory practice of shuffling unnumbered pages or removing file labels from folders before
producing paper discovery to the opponent.
93
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350(b).

96
 B’s counsel contacted Party A before going through the extra expense of providing

paper copies.

The form of production may also be an issue when exercising the option to produce

records in lieu of answering interrogatories, so the amendments to the civil rules effective

September 1, 2012, (1) specifically authorize the production of electronically stored

information in lieu of answers to interrogatories, and (2) set out the procedure for

determining the form in which to produce the ESI.94 If the records to be produced consist of

electronically stored information, the records must be produced in a form or forms in which

they are ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms.95

PRODUCTION OF ESI PURSUANT TO SUBPOENA:

Production of electronically stored information pursuant to subpoena potentially

raises the now familiar issues of form of production, undue burden, and who pays the cost

of production. Fortunately, effective September 1, 2012, the civil procedure rules

specifically address these issues and provide a pathway for counsel and judges to

negotiate these issues.

The issue of form of production in response to a subpoena is much the same as the

issues implicated in a Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.350 request for production, and amended Rule

1.410 addresses the issues in similar fashion. It makes abundant sense for the party

issuing the subpoena to specify the preferred form of production. However, if a subpoena

does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person

94
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.340(c).
95
Id.

97
responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a

reasonably usable form or forms.96

Persons responding to a subpoena may object to discovery of ESI from sources that

are not reasonably accessible because of undue costs or burden.97 On motion to compel

discovery or to quash, the person from whom discovery is sought must show that the

information sought or the form requested is not reasonably accessible because of undue

costs or burden. Once that showing is made, the court may order that the discovery not be

had or may nonetheless order discovery limited to such sources or in such forms if the

requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations set out in Fla. R. Civ. P.

1.280(d)(2). The court may specify conditions of the discovery, including ordering that some

or all of the expenses of the discovery be paid by the party seeking the discovery.98 Failure

of the court or a party to make provision for cost of production from non-parties to produce

subpoenaed documents is a departure from the essential requirements of the law and may

remedied by certiorari review.99 The court will undoubtedly take into account whether the

subpoena is directed to a party or a person or organization controlled by or closely

identified with a party, or to a person or entity totally unrelated to and disinterested in the

case. Subpoenas to non-parties have become a major issue in discovery of ESI because

an enormous amount of ESI is sent, stored, shared, or created on systems owned or

controlled by third parties, including internet accessible sites.

DISCOVERY OF SOCIAL MEDIA ESI

Social media is a term referring to a broad array of networking sites with varying

participation by individuals, businesses, governmental bodies, and other organizations.

96
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.410(c).
97
Id.
98
Id.
99
First Call Ventures, LLC v. Nationwide Relocation Servs., 127 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013).

98
Social media sites are proliferating in type, form, and content. No longer just a way for kids

and young adults to connect about their current activities and status, social media has

captured the attention of individuals of all ages as well as businesses, corporations,

government entities, and virtually any organization or person that wants to reach target or

broad audiences. Some of the more popular social media sites are Facebook, Myspace,

LinkedIn, Wikipedia, Flickr, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter, but there are many more.

Social media policies, agreements, structure, make-up, and culture all differ from site to

site, which creates varied and complex data management and ownership issues and

significant challenges in preservation of social media content. Most social media sites

include features allowing members to send direct messages between themselves, much

like emails or text messages. Assuming relevancy under the facts and circumstances of a

given case, social media evidence is discoverable. See Nucci v. Target Corp., 162 So. 3d

146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).

Social media may contain important relevant evidence in any number of different

legal disputes. It is important to note that the information of a member in a social media site

is not obtained by subpoena of the social media provider itself, any more than email is

obtained by subpoena of an email provider. The information is discovered from the

member. It is their information, they own it, not the providers, and thus the proper course of

conduct is a request for production, or subpoena, from them.100 Text searches are run, the

use of key words only determines potentially relevant documents or files. The fact that a

document or file comes up in a key word search, or otherwise is found to contain an agreed

upon keyword, does not in and of itself make it discoverable.

100
Stored Communications Act (SCA, codified at 18 U.S.C. Chapter 121 §§ 2701–2712) is a law that addresses voluntary and
compelled disclosure of "stored wire and electronic communications and transactional records" held by third-party internet service
providers (ISPs). It is a waste of time to subpoena internet service providers. Instead, a social media member should be requested
to produce their information, and motions to compel should be directed against them if they do not comply.

99
 Example: Party A in a commercial case seeks discovery of all emails in the

possession or control of Party B that relate to the same transaction that is at issue or

similar transactions for the previous five years. Two key words selected by Party A

are the word “cobalt” and the name “Prosser.” Party B is willing to run those key

words and then select and produce discoverable, non-privileged documents. Party A

contends that it is entitled to receive all emails containing “cobalt” or “Prosser.” Is

Party A entitled to the discovery of all the emails identified in the word search using

these terms? Answer: NO. Relevancy is determined by examination of the

document itself. The words used in a search, even if they are agreed upon by the

parties as appropriate search terms, are but a tool to identify potentially relevant

documents. Relevancy is determined by legal analysis of whether the document is

(1) relevant to the case's subject matter, and (2) admissible in court or reasonably

calculated to lead to evidence that is admissible in court.101 Documents that turn up

in a word search may or may not meet these criteria, and Party B is only obligated to

produce discoverable documents. The analog equivalent to the demand made by

party A is to request a search of all file folders with the words “Cobalt” and “Prosser”

on the file labels and then contend that all paper within those folders is discoverable.

The determination of relevancy is made by examination of the document itself, not

normally by the wording of the label on the folder in which the document is found.

CONCLUSION : U

Discovery of ESI is potentially complicated, ever-changing, and extremely important

in many cases. Counsel must be conversant enough with the terminology, law, r u l e s ,

101
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1); Balfour, supra n. 16.

100
and technology to identify issues and fully advise the client on electronic discovery

issues.

101
 Appendix A: COMPARISON OF FLORIDA AND FEDERAL RULES OF E-
DISCOVERY

Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

RULE 1.200. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE RULE 16. PRETRIAL CONFERENCES;

(a) Case Management Conference. At any time after SCHEDULING; MANAGEMENT
responsive pleadings or motions are due, the court may (a) Purposes of a Pretrial Conference. In any
order, or a party by serving a notice may convene, a case
management conference. The matter to be considered
action, the court may order the attorneys and
shall be specified in the order or notice setting the any unrepresented parties to appear for one or
conference. At such a conference the court may: more pretrial conferences for such purposes as:
(1) schedule or reschedule the service of motions, (1) expediting disposition of the action;
pleadings, and other papers; (2) establishing early and continuing control so
(2) set or reset the time of trials, subject to rule 1.440(c);
(3) coordinate the progress of the action if the complex
that the case will not be protracted because of
litigation factors contained in rule 1.201(a)(2)(A)- lack of management;
(a)(2)(H) are present; (3) discouraging wasteful pretrial activities;
(4) limit, schedule, order, or expedite discovery; (4) improving the quality of the trial through
(5) consider the possibility of obtaining admissions of more thorough preparation; and
fact and voluntary exchange of documents and
electronically stored information, and stipulations
(5) facilitating settlement.
regarding authenticity of documents and electronically (b) Scheduling.
stored information; (1) Scheduling Order. Except in categories of
(6) consider the need for advance rulings from the actions exempted by local rule, the district
court on the admissibility of documents and judge—or a magistrate judge when authorized
electronically stored information;
(7) discuss as to electronically stored information, the
by local rule—must issue a scheduling order:
possibility of agreements from the parties regarding the (A) after receiving the parties’ report under
extent to which such evidence should be preserved, the Rule 26(f); or
form in which such evidence should be produced, and (B) after consulting with the parties’ attorneys
whether discovery of such information should be and any unrepresented parties at a scheduling
conducted in phases or limited to particular
individuals, time periods, or sources;
conference.
(8) schedule disclosure of expert witnesses and the (2) Time to Issue. The judge must issue the
discovery of facts known and opinions held by such scheduling order as soon as practicable, but
experts; unless the judge finds good cause for delay, the
(9) schedule or hear motions in limine; judge must issue it within the earlier of 90 days
(10) pursue the possibilities of settlement;
(11) require filing of preliminary stipulations if issues
after any defendant has been served with the
can be narrowed; complaint or 60 days after any defendant has
(12) consider referring issues to a magistrate for findings appeared.
of fact; and (3) Contents of the Order.
(13) schedule other conferences or determine other (A) Required Contents. The scheduling order
matters that may aid in the disposition of the action.
(b) Pretrial Conference. --After the action is at issue the
must limit the time to join other parties, amend
court itself may or shall on the timely motion of any the pleadings, complete discovery, and file
party require the parties to appear for a conference to motions.
consider and determine: (B) Permitted Contents. The scheduling order
(1) the simplification of the issues; may:
(2) the necessity or desirability of amendments to the
pleadings;
(i) modify the timing of disclosures under
(3) the possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and of Rules 26(a) and 26(e)(1);
documents that will avoid unnecessary proof; (ii) modify the extent of discovery;
(4) the limitation of the number of expert witnesses;

102
(5) the potential use of juror notebooks; and (iii) provide for disclosure , discovery, or
(6) any matters permitted under subdivision (a) of this preservation of electronically stored
rule.
(c) Notice. --Reasonable notice shall be given for a case information;
management conference, and 20 days' notice shall be (iv) include any agreements the parties reach
given for a pretrial conference. On failure of a party to for asserting claims of privilege or of
attend a conference, the court may dismiss the action, protection as trial-preparation material after
strike the pleadings, limit proof or witnesses, or take any information is produced, including agreements
other appropriate action. Any documents that the court
requires for any conference shall be specified in the
reached under Federal Rule of Evidence 502.
order. Orders setting pretrial conferences shall be (v) direct that before moving for an order
uniform throughout the territorial jurisdiction of the relating to discovery, the movant must request
court. a conference with the court;
(d) Pretrial Order. --The court shall make an order (vi) set dates for pretrial conferences and for
reciting the action taken at a conference and any
stipulations made. The order shall control the subsequent
trial; and
course of the action unless modified to prevent injustice. (vii) include other appropriate matters.
(4) Modifying a Schedule. A schedule may be
modified only for good cause and with the
judge's consent.
(c) Attendance and Matters for Consideration
at a Pretrial Conference.
(1) Attendance. A represented party must
authorize at least one of its attorneys to make
stipulations and admissions about all matters
that can reasonably be anticipated for
discussion at a pretrial conference. If
appropriate, the court may require that a party
or its representative be present or reasonably
available by other means to consider possible
settlement.
(2) Matters for Consideration. At any pretrial
conference, the court may consider and take
appropriate action on the following matters:
(A)-(P) OMITTED
(d) Pretrial Orders. After any conference under
this rule, the court should issue an order
reciting the action taken. This order controls
the course of the action unless the court
modifies it.
(e)-(f) OMITTED (2) Imposing Fees and
Costs. Instead of or in addition to any other
sanction, the court must order the party, its
attorney, or both to pay the reasonable
expenses—including attorney's fees—incurred
because of any noncompliance with this rule,
unless the noncompliance was substantially
justified or other circumstances make an award
of expenses unjust.

103
RULE 1.201. COMPLEX LITIGATION – THERE IS NO FEDERAL COUNTERPART
NEW TO FLORIDA’S COMPLEX LITIGATION
(a) OMITTED PROCEDURAL RULES.
(b) Initial Case Management Report and Conference.
The court shall hold an initial case management Note: In some respects, the requirements for
conference within 60 days from the date of the order the Initial Case Management Report and
declaring the action complex. Conference in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.201(b)
(1) At least 20 days prior to the date of the initial case resemble the purposes of a Federal Rule 26(f)
management conference, attorneys for the parties as well “meet and confer” requirement. (See Fed. R.
as any parties appearing pro se shall confer and prepare
a joint statement, which shall be filed with the clerk of Civ. P. 26 below). However, the Federal Rule
the court no later than 14 days before the conference, 26(f) meet and confer requirement is
outlining a discovery plan and stating: mandatory in every case, and only state court
(A) a brief factual statement of the action, which cases that are declared complex under Fla. R.
includes the claims and defenses; Civ. P. 1.201 automatically include the Rule
(B) a brief statement on the theory of damages by
any party seeking affirmative relief; 1.201(b)(1)(J) requirements.
(C) the likelihood of settlement;
(D) the likelihood of appearance in the action of
additional parties and identification of any non-parties to
whom any of the parties will seek to allocate fault;
(E) the proposed limits on the time: (i) to join other
parties and to amend the pleadings, (ii) to file and hear
motions, (iii) to identify any non-parties whose identity
is known, or otherwise describe as specifically as
practicable any non-parties whose identity is not known,
(iv) to disclose expert witnesses, and (v) to complete
discovery;
(F) the names of the attorneys responsible for
handling the action;
(G) the necessity for a protective order to facilitate
discovery;
(H) proposals for the formulation and simplification
of issues, including the elimination of frivolous claims
or defenses, and the number and timing of motions for
summary judgment or partial summary judgment;
(I) the possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and
voluntary exchange of documents and electronically
stored information, stipulations regarding authenticity of
documents, electronically stored information, and the
need for advance rulings from the court on admissibility
of evidence;
(J) the possibility of obtaining agreements among
the parties regarding the extent to which such
electronically stored information should be preserved,
the form in which such information should be
produced, and whether discovery of such information
should be conducted in phases or limited to particular
individuals, time periods, or sources;
[Remainder of Rule OMITTED ]

104
RULE 1.280. GENERAL PROVISIONS RULE 26. DUTY TO DISCLOSE;
GOVERNING DISCOVERY GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING
(a) Discovery Methods. DISCOVERY
[OMITTED ] (A) REQUIRED DISCLOSURES. [OMITTED]
(b) Scope of Discovery. Unless otherwise limited by (b) DISCOVERY SCOPE AND LIMITS.
order of the court in accordance with these rules, the
scope of discovery is as follows:
(1) Scope in General. Unless otherwise limited by
(1) In General. --Parties may obtain discovery regarding court order, the scope of discovery is as
any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject follows: Parties may obtain discovery
matter of the pending action, whether it relates to the regarding any nonprivileged matter that is
claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the relevant to any party's claim or defense and
claim or defense of any other party, including the
existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and
proportional to the needs of the case,
location of any books, documents, or other tangible considering the importance of the issues at
things and the identity and location of persons having stake in the action, the amount in controversy,
knowledge of any discoverable matter. It is not ground the parties’ relative access to relevant
for objection that the information sought will be information, the parties’ resources, the
inadmissible at the trial if the information sought
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
importance of the discovery in resolving the
admissible evidence. (2) Indemnity Agreements. --A issues, and whether the burden or expense of
party may obtain discovery of the existence and contents the proposed discovery outweighs its likely
of any agreement under which any person may be liable benefit. Information within this scope of
to satisfy part or all of a judgment that may be entered in discovery need not be admissible in evidence
the action or to indemnify or to reimburse a party for
payments made to satisfy the judgment. Information
to be discoverable.
concerning the agreement is not admissible in evidence (2) Limitations on Frequency and Extent.
at trial by reason of disclosure. (A) When Permitted. By order, the court may alter the
(3) Electronically Stored Information. A party may limits in these rules on the number of depositions and
obtain discovery of electronically stored information in interrogatories or on the length of depositions under
accordance with these rules. Rule 30. By order or local rule, the court may also limit
*** [(4)-(8) OMITTED] the number of requests under Rule 36.
(d) Limitations on Discovery of Electronically Stored (B) Specific Limitations on Electronically Stored
Information. Information. A party need not provide discovery of
(1) A person may object to discovery of electronically electronically stored information from sources that the
stored information from sources that the person party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of
identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery
burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a or for a protective order, the party from whom
protective order, the person from whom discovery is discovery is sought must show that the information is
sought must show that the information sought or the not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or
format requested is not reasonably accessible because cost. If that showing is made, the court may
of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the
court may nonetheless order the discovery from such requesting party shows good cause, considering the
sources or in such formats if the requesting party limitations of Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify
shows good cause. The court may specify conditions of conditions for the discovery.
the discovery, including ordering that some or all of (C) When Required. On motion or on its own, the court
the expenses incurred by the person from whom must limit the frequency or extent of discovery
discovery is sought be paid by the party seeking the otherwise allowed by these rules or by local rule if it
discovery. determines that:
(2) In determining any motion involving discovery of (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or
electronically stored information, the court must limit duplicative, or can be obtained from some other source
the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less
by these rules if it determines that (i) the discovery expensive;
sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample

105
can be obtained from another source or in another opportunity to obtain the information by discovery in
manner that is more convenient, less burdensome, or the action; or
less expensive; or (iii) the proposed discovery is outside the scope
(ii) the burden or expense of the discovery outweighs permitted by Rule 26(b)(1).
its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the (3)- (5) OMITTED
amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the (c) –(e) OMITTED
importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the (f) CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES; PLANNING
importance of the discovery in resolving the issues. FOR DISCOVERY.
*** [(e)-(g) OMITTED] (1) Conference Timing. OMITTED.
(2) Conference Content; Parties’ Responsibilities. In
Note: Florida Rules of Procedure do not have conferring, the parties must consider the nature and basis
a universal requirement comparable to the of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for
Federal Rule 26(f) meet and confer. However, promptly settling or resolving the case; make or arrange
for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1); discuss
such measures may be ordered by the Court on any issues about preserving discoverable information;
a case-by-case basis as a matter of case and develop a proposed discovery plan. The attorneys of
management under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.200 and record and all unrepresented parties that have appeared
1.201 or by the court’s inherent case in the case are jointly responsible for arranging the
management authority. conference, for attempting in good faith to agree on the
proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court
within 14 days after the conference a written report
outlining the plan. The court may order the parties or
attorneys to attend the conference in person.
(3) Discovery Plan. A discovery plan must state the
parties’ views and proposals on:
(A) what changes should be made in the timing, form, or
requirement for disclosures under Rule 26(a), including
a statement of when initial disclosures were made or will
be made;
(B) the subjects on which discovery may be needed,
when discovery should be completed, and whether
discovery should be conducted in phases or be limited to
or focused on particular issues;
(C) any issues about disclosure, discovery, or
preservation of electronically stored information,
including the form or forms in which it should be
produced;
(D) any issues about claims of privilege or of protection
as trial-preparation materials, including—if the parties
agree on a procedure to assert these claims after
production—whether to ask the court to include their
agreement in an order under Federal Rule of Evidence
502.
(E) what changes should be made in the limitations on
discovery imposed under these rules or by local rule, and
what other limitations should be imposed; and
(F) any other orders that the court should issue under
Rule 26(c) or under Rule 16(b) and (c).

*** Remainder of Rule OMITTED

106
RULE 1.340. INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES RULE 33. INTERROGATORIES TO
(a)-(b) OMITTED PARTIES
(c) Option to Produce Records. When the answer to an (a)-(c) OMITTED
interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the (c) Use. An answer to an interrogatory may be used to
records (including electronically stored information) of the extent allowed by the Federal Rules of Evidence.
the party to whom the interrogatory is directed or from (d) Option to Produce Business Records. If the answer to
an examination, audit, or inspection of the records or an interrogatory may be determined by examining,
from a compilation, abstract, or summary based on the auditing, compiling, abstracting, or summarizing a
records and the burden of deriving or ascertaining the party's business records (including electronically
answer is substantially the same for the party serving the stored information), and if the burden of deriving or
interrogatory as for the party to whom it is directed, an ascertaining the answer will be substantially the same
answer to the interrogatory specifying the records from for either party, the responding party may answer by:
which the answer may be derived or ascertained and (1) specifying the records that must be reviewed, in
offering to give the party serving the interrogatory a sufficient detail to enable the interrogating party to
reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect the locate and identify them as readily as the responding
records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or party could; and
summaries is a sufficient answer. An answer shall be in (2) giving the interrogating party a reasonable
sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to opportunity to examine and audit the records and to
locate and to identify, as readily as can the party make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries.
interrogated, the records from which the answer may be
derived or ascertained, or shall identify a person or
persons representing the interrogated party who will be
available to assist the interrogating party in locating and
identifying the records at the time they are produced. If
the records to be produced consist of electronically
stored information, the records shall be produced in a
form or forms in which they are ordinarily maintained
or in a reasonably usable form or forms.
(d) Effect on Co-Party. --OMITTED
(e) Service and Filing. OMITTED

RULE 1.350. PRODUCTION OF RULE 34. PRODUCING DOCUMENTS,

DOCUMENTS AND THINGS AND ELECTRONICALLY STORED
ENTRY UPON LAND FOR INSPECTION INFORMATION, AND TANGIBLE
AND OTHER PURPOSES THINGS, OR ENTERING ONTO LAND,
(a) Request; Scope. Any party may request any other FOR INSPECTION AND OTHER
party (1) to produce and permit the party making the PURPOSES
request, or someone acting in the requesting party’s (a) In General. A party may serve on any other party a
behalf, to inspect and copy any designated documents, request within the scope of Rule 26(b):
including electronically stored information, writings, (1) to produce and permit the requesting party or its
drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phono-records, representative to inspect, copy, test, or sample the
and other data compilations from which information following items in the responding party's possession,
can be obtained, translated, if necessary, by the party to custody, or control:
whom the request is directed through detection devices (A) any designated documents or electronically stored
into reasonably usable form, that constitute or contain information—including writings, drawings, graphs,
matters within the scope of rule 1.280(b) and that are in charts, photographs, sound recordings, images, and
the possession, custody, or control of the party to whom other data or data compilations—stored in any medium
the request is directed; (2) to inspect and copy, test, or from which information can be obtained either directly
sample any tangible things that constitute or contain or, if necessary, after translation by the responding
matters within the scope of rule 1.280(b) and that are in party into a reasonably usable form; or
the possession, custody, or control of the party to whom (B) any designated tangible things; or
the request is directed; or (3) to permit entry upon (2) to permit entry onto designated land or other
designated land or other property in the possession or property possessed or controlled by the responding
control of the party upon whom the request is served for

107
the purpose of inspection and measuring, surveying, party, so that the requesting party may inspect, measure,
photographing, testing, or sampling the property or any survey, photograph, test, or sample the property or any
designated object or operation on it within the scope of designated object or operation on it.
rule 1.280(b). (b) Procedure.
(b) Procedure. Without leave of court the request may be (1) Contents of the Request. The request:
served on the plaintiff after commencement of the action (A) must describe with reasonable particularity each
and on any other party with or after service of the item or category of items to be inspected;
process and initial pleading on that party. The request (B) must specify a reasonable time, place, and manner
shall set forth the items to be inspected, either by for the inspection and for performing the related acts;
individual item or category, and describe each item and and
category with reasonable particularity. The request shall (C) may specify the form or forms in which
specify a reasonable time, place, and manner of making electronically stored information is to be produced.
the inspection or performing the related acts. The party (2) Responses and Objections.
to whom the request is directed shall serve a written (A) Time to Respond. The party to whom the request is
response within 30 days after service of the request, directed must respond in writing within 30 days after
except that a defendant may serve a response within 45 being served or – if the request was delivered under Rule
days after service of the process and initial pleading on 26(d)(2) – within 30 days after the parties’ first Rule
that defendant. The court may allow a shorter or longer 26(f) conference. A shorter or longer time may be
time. For each item or category the response shall state stipulated to under Rule 29 or be ordered by the court.
that inspection and related activities will be permitted as (B) Responding to Each Item. For each item or category,
requested unless the request is objected to, in which the response must either state that inspection and related
event the reasons for the objection shall be stated. If an activities will be permitted as requested or state with
objection is made to part of an item or category, the part specificity the grounds for objecting to the request,
shall be specified. When producing documents, the including the reasons. The responding party may state
producing party shall either produce them as they are that it will produce copies of documents or of
kept in the usual course of business or shall identify electronically stored information instead of permitting
them to correspond with the categories in the request. A inspection. The production must then be completed no
request for electronically stored information may later than the time for inspection specified in the request
specify the form or forms in which electronically stored or another reasonable time specified in the response.
information is to be produced. If the responding party (C) Objections. An objection must state whether any
objects to a requested form, or if no form is specified in responsive materials are being withheld on the basis of
the request, the responding party must state the form or that objection. An objection to part of a request must
forms it intends to use. If a request for electronically specify the part and permit inspection of the rest.
stored information does not specify the form of (D) Responding to a Request for Production of
production, the producing party must produce the Electronically Stored Information. The response may
information in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily state an objection to a requested form for producing
maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms. electronically stored information. If the responding
The party submitting the request may move for an order party objects to a requested form—or if no form was
under rule 1.380 concerning any objection, failure to specified in the request—the party must state the form
respond to the request, or any part of it, or failure to or forms it intends to use.
permit the inspection as requested. (E) Producing the Documents or Electronically Stored
(c)-(d) OMITTED Information. Unless otherwise stipulated or ordered by
the court, these procedures apply to producing
documents or electronically stored information:
(i) A party must produce documents as they are kept in
the usual course of business or must organize and
label them to correspond to the categories in the
request;
(ii) If a request does not specify a form for producing
electronically stored information, a party must produce it in a
form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a
reasonably usable form or forms; and
(iii) A party need not produce the same electronically stored
information in more than one form.
(c) Nonparties. As provided in Rule 45, a nonparty may be
compelled to produce documents and tangible things or to
permit an inspection.

108
RULE 1.380. FAILURE TO MAKE RULE 37. FAILURE TO MAKE
DISCOVERY; SANCTIONS DISCLOSURES OR TO COOPERATE IN
DISCOVERY; SANCTIONS
(a)-(d) OMITTED
(a)-(d) OMITTED
(e) Electronically Stored Information; Sanctions for
Failure to Preserve. Absent exceptional circumstances, (e) Failure to Provide Electronically Stored
a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on Information. If electronically stored information that
a party for failing to provide electronically stored should have been preserved in the anticipation or
information lost as a result of the routine, good faith conduct of litigation is lost because a party failed to
operation of an electronic information system. take reasonable steps to preserve it, and it cannot be
restored or replaced through additional discovery, the
court:
(1) upon finding prejudice to another party from loss
of the information, may order measures no greater
than necessary to cure the prejudice; or
(2) only upon finding that the party acted with the
intent to deprive another party of the information’s use
in the litigation may:
(A) presume that the lost information was unfavorable
to the party;
(B) instruct the jury that it may or must presume the
information was unfavorable to the party; or
(C) dismiss the action or enter a default judgment.

(f) OMITTED

RULE 1.410. SUBPOENA RULE 45 SUBPOENA

(a)-(b) OMITTED (c) Protecting a Person Subject to a Subpoena.

(1) Avoiding Undue Burden or Expense;
(c) For Production of Documentary Evidence. A
subpoena may also command the person to whom it is
Sanctions. A party or attorney responsible for
directed to produce the books, papers, documents issuing and serving a subpoena must take
(including electronically stored information), or reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue
tangible things designated therein, but the court, upon burden or expense on a person subject to the
motion made promptly and in any event at or before the subpoena. The issuing court must enforce this
time specified in the subpoena for compliance therewith,
may (1) quash or modify the subpoena if it is
duty and impose an appropriate sanction—
unreasonable and oppressive, or (2) condition denial of which may include lost earnings and
the motion upon the advancement by the person in reasonable attorney's fees—on a party or
whose behalf the subpoena is issued of the reasonable attorney who fails to comply.
cost of producing the books, papers, documents, or (2) Command to Produce Materials or Permit
tangible things. If a subpoena does not specify a form
for producing electronically stored information, the
Inspection.
person responding must produce it in a form or forms (A) Appearance Not Required. A person
in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably commanded to produce documents,
usable form or forms. A person responding to a electronically stored information, or
subpoena may object to discovery of electronically tangible things, or to permit the inspection
stored information from sources that the person
identifies as not reasonably accessible because of
of premises, need not appear in person at
undue costs or burden. On motion to compel discovery the place of production or inspection unless
or to quash, the person from whom discovery is sought also commanded to appear for a deposition,

109
must show that the information sought or the form hearing, or trial.
requested is not reasonably accessible because of (B) Objections. A person commanded to
undue costs or burden. If that showing is made, the
court may nonetheless order discovery from such
produce documents or tangible things or to
sources or in such forms if the requesting party shows permit inspection may serve on the party or
good cause, considering the limitations set out in rule attorney designated in the subpoena a written
1.280(d)(2). The court may specify conditions of the objection to inspecting, copying, testing or
discovery, including ordering that some or all of the sampling any or all of the materials or to
expenses of the discovery be paid by the party seeking
the discovery. A party seeking a production of evidence inspecting the premises—or to producing
at trial which would be subject to a subpoena may electronically stored information in the form
compel such production by serving a notice to produce or forms requested. The objection must be
such evidence on an adverse party as provided in rule served before the earlier of the time specified
1.080. Such notice shall have the same effect and be for compliance or 14 days after the subpoena is
subject to the same limitations as a subpoena served on
the party.
served. If an objection is made, the following
rules apply:
(d)-(h) OMITTED (i) At any time, on notice to the commanded
person, the serving party may move the issuing
court for an order compelling production or
inspection.
(ii) These acts may be required only as directed
in the order, and the order must protect a
person who is neither a party nor a party's
officer from significant expense resulting from
compliance.
(3) OMITTED
(d) Duties in Responding to a Subpoena.
(1) Producing Documents or Electronically
Stored Information. These procedures apply
to producing documents or electronically
stored information:
(A) Documents. A person responding to a
subpoena to produce documents must
produce them as they are kept in the
ordinary course of business or must
organize and label them to correspond to
the categories in the demand.
(B) Form for Producing Electronically Stored
Information Not Specified. If a subpoena
does not specify a form for producing
electronically stored information, the person
responding must produce it in a form or
forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or
in a reasonably usable form or forms.
(C) Electronically Stored Information
Produced in Only One Form. The person
responding need not produce the same
electronically stored information in more

110
 than one form.
(D) Inaccessible Electronically Stored
Information. The person responding need
not provide discovery of electronically
stored information from sources that the
person identifies as not reasonably
accessible because of undue burden or cost.
On motion to compel discovery or for a
protective order, the person responding
must show that the information is not
reasonably accessible because of undue
burden or cost. If that showing is made, the
court may nonetheless order discovery from
such sources if the requesting party shows
good cause, considering the limitations of
Rule 26(b)(2)(C). The court may specify
conditions for the discovery.

Remainder of Rule 45 OMITTED

RULE 1.285. INADVERTENT FED. R. EVID. 502. ATTORNEY-CLIENT

DISCLOSURE OF PRIVILEGED PRIVILEGE AND WORK PRODUCT;
MATERIALS LIMITATIONS ON WAIVER
(a) Assertion of Privilege as to Inadvertently The following provisions apply, in the
Disclosed Materials. Any party, person, or circumstances set out, to disclosure of a
entity, after inadvertent disclosure of any communication or information covered by the
materials pursuant to these rules, may attorney-client privilege or work-product
thereafter assert any privilege recognized by protection.
law as to those materials. This right exists (a) Disclosure Made in a Federal Proceeding or
without regard to whether the disclosure was to a Federal Office or Agency; Scope of a
made pursuant to formal demand or informal Waiver. When the disclosure is made in a
request. In order to assert the privilege, the federal proceeding or to a federal office or
party, person, or entity, shall, within 10 days of agency and waives the attorney-client privilege
actually discovering the inadvertent disclosure, or work-product protection, the waiver extends
serve written notice of the assertion of to an undisclosed communication or
privilege on the party to whom the materials information in a federal or state proceeding
were disclosed. The notice shall specify with only if:
particularity the materials as to which the (1) the waiver is intentional;
privilege is asserted, the nature of the privilege (2) the disclosed and undisclosed
asserted, and the date on which the inadvertent communications or information concern the
disclosure was actually discovered. same subject matter; and
(b) Duty of the Party Receiving Notice of an (3) they ought in fairness to be considered
Assertion of Privilege. A party receiving notice together.
of an assertion of privilege under subdivision (b) Inadvertent Disclosure. When made in a
(a) shall promptly return, sequester, or destroy federal proceeding or to a federal office or
the materials specified in the notice, as well as agency, the disclosure does not operate as a

111
any copies of the material. The party receiving waiver in a federal or state proceeding if:
the notice shall also promptly notify any other (1) the disclosure is inadvertent;
party, person, or entity to whom it has (2) the holder of the privilege or protection
disclosed the materials of the fact that the took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure;
notice has been served and of the effect of this and
rule. That party shall also take reasonable steps (3) the holder promptly took reasonable steps
to retrieve the materials disclosed. Nothing to rectify the error, including (if applicable)
herein affects any obligation pursuant to R. following Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26
Regulating Fla. Bar 4-4.4(b). (b)(5)(B).
(c) Right to Challenge Assertion of Privilege. (c) Disclosure Made in a State Proceeding.
Any party receiving a notice made under When the disclosure is made in a state
subdivision (a) has the right to challenge the proceeding and is not the subject of a state-
assertion of privilege. The grounds for the court order concerning waiver, the disclosure
challenge may include, but are not limited to, does not operate as a waiver in a federal
the following: proceeding if the disclosure:
(1) The materials in question are not (1) would not be a waiver under this rule if it
privileged. had been made in a federal proceeding; or
(2) The disclosing party, person, or entity lacks (2) is not a waiver under the law of the state
standing to assert the privilege. where the disclosure occurred.
(3) The disclosing party, person, or entity has (d) Controlling Effect of a Court Order. A
failed to serve timely notice under this rule. federal court may order that the privilege or
(4) The circumstances surrounding the protection is not waived by disclosure
production or disclosure of the materials connected with the litigation pending before
warrant a finding that the disclosing party, the court — in which event the disclosure is
person, or entity has waived its assertion that also not a waiver in any other federal or state
the material is protected by a privilege. proceeding.
Any party seeking to challenge the assertion of (e) Controlling Effect of a Party Agreement.
privilege shall do so by serving notice of its An agreement on the effect of disclosure in a
challenge on the party, person, or entity federal proceeding is binding only on the
asserting the privilege. Notice of the challenge parties to the agreement, unless it is
shall be served within 20 days of service of the incorporated into a court order.
original notice given by the disclosing party, (f) Controlling Effect of this Rule.
person, or entity. The notice of the recipient‘s Notwithstanding Rules 101 and 1101, this rule
challenge shall specify the grounds for the applies to state proceedings and to federal
challenge. Failure to serve timely notice of court-annexed and federal court-mandated
challenge is a waiver of the right to challenge. arbitration proceedings, in the circumstances
(d) Effect of Determination that Privilege set out in the rule. And notwithstanding Rule
Applies. When an order is entered determining 501, this rule applies even if state law provides
that materials are privileged or that the right to the rule of decision.
challenge the privilege has been waived, the (g) Definitions. In this rule:
court shall direct what shall be done with the (1) “attorney-client privilege” means the protection
materials and any copies so as to preserve all that applicable law provides for confidential
rights of appellate review. The recipient of the attorney-client communications; and
materials shall also give prompt notice of the (2) “work-product protection” means the protection
court‘s determination to any other party, that applicable law provides for tangible material
person, or entity to whom it had disclosed the (or its intangible equivalent) prepared in
materials. anticipation of litigation or for trial.

112
 Committee Notes to Florida’s 2012 e-Discovery Rules Amendments
1.200 Committee Notes
2012 Amendment. Subdivisions (a)(5) to (a)(7) are added to address issues involving
electronically stored information.

1.201 Committee Notes

2012 Amendment. Subdivision (b)(1)(J) is added to address issues involving electronically
stored information.

1.280 Committee Notes

2012 Amendment. Subdivisions (b)(3) and (d) are added to address discovery of electronically
stored information. The parties should consider conferring with one another at the earliest
practical opportunity to discuss the reasonable scope of preservation and production of
electronically stored information. These issues may also be addressed by means of a rule 1.200
or rule 1.201 case management conference.
Under the good cause test in subdivision (d)(1), the court should balance the costs and burden of
the requested discovery, including the potential for disruption of operations or corruption of the
electronic devices or systems from which discovery is sought, against the relevance of the
information and the requesting party’s need for that information. Under the proportionality and
reasonableness - 13 -
factors set out in subdivision (d)(2), the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it
determines that the discovery sought is excessive in relation to the factors listed. In evaluating
the good cause or proportionality tests, the court may find its task complicated if the parties
know little about what information the sources at issue contain, whether the information sought
is relevant, or how valuable it may be to the litigation. If appropriate, the court may direct the
parties to develop the record further by engaging in focused discovery, including sampling of the
sources, to learn more about what electronically stored information may be contained in those
sources, what costs and burdens are involved in retrieving, reviewing, and producing the
information, and how valuable the information sought may be to the litigation in light of the
availability of information from other sources or methods of discovery, and in light of the
parties’ resources and the issues at stake in the litigation.

1.340 Committee Notes

2012 Amendment. Subdivision (c) is amended to provide for the production of electronically
stored information in answer to interrogatories and to set out a procedure for determining the
form in which to produce electronically stored information.

1.350 Committee Notes

2012 Amendment. Subdivision (a) is amended to address the production of electronically stored
information. Subdivision (b) is amended to set out a procedure for determining the form to be
used in producing electronically stored information.

1.380 Committee Notes

2012 Amendment. Subdivision (e) is added to make clear that a party should not be sanctioned
for the loss of electronic evidence due to the good-faith operation of an electronic information
system; the language mirrors that of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). Nevertheless, the

113
good-faith requirement contained in subdivision (e) should prevent a party from exploiting the
routine operation of an information system to thwart discovery obligations by allowing that
operation to destroy information that party is required to preserve or produce. In determining
good faith, the court may consider any steps taken by the party to comply with court orders,
party agreements, or requests to preserve such information.

1.410 Committee Notes

2012 Amendment. Subdivision (c) is amended to address the production of electronically stored
information pursuant to a subpoena. The procedures for dealing with disputes concerning the
accessibility of the information sought or the form for its production are intended to correspond
to those set out in Rule 1.280(d).

114
CHAPTER TEN

DISCOVERY OF LAWYER-CLIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS

Confidential lawyer-client communications are, by statute, privileged, and

therefore not discoverable.1 A communication is “confidential” if it is not intended to be

T

disclosed to third persons other than those to whom disclosure is in furtherance of the

rendition of legal services to the client, and those reasonably necessary for the

transmission of the communication.2 However, the privilege can be waived, intentionally or

T

unintentionally, thus subjecting the communication to discovery. A waiver by the client of

part of the privileged communications, serves as a waiver as to the remainder of the

communications about the same subject.3

In Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason,4 the Florida Supreme Court set forth the

following criteria to judge whether a corporation’s communications are protected by the

attorney-client privilege:

(1) the communication would not have been made but

for the contemplation of legal services;

(2) the employee making the communication did so at

the direction of his or her corporate superior;

(3) the superior made the request of the employee as

part of the corporation’s effort to secure legal advice
or services;

(4) the content of the communication relates to the legal

services being rendered, within the scope of the
employee’s duties; and

1
Fla. Stat. § 90.502; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1).
2
Fla. Stat. § 90.502.
3
Iternational Tel. & Tel. Corp v. United Tel. Co. of Florida, 60 F.R.D. 177 (M.D. Fla. 1973).
4
632 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1994).

115
 (5) the communication is not disseminated beyond
those persons who, because of the corporate
structure, need to know its contents.

PRIVILEGE LOGS : U

Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(5) provides, in part, that a party withholding information from
T

discovery claiming that it is privileged shall make the claim expressly, and shall describe

the nature of the documents, communications or things not produced or disclosed in a

manner that, without revealing the information itself privileged or protected, will enable

other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protections. It has been

suggested that the privilege log should include at a minimum (for documents), sender,

recipients, title or type, date and subject matter.5

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida has promulgated a Local
T

Rule for the content required in a privilege log.6 In at least one instance, that Local Rule
T

has served as guidance for a Florida court.7 Guidance for the content required in a privilege

log in the Middle District of Florida can be found in Arthrex, Inc. v. Parcus Medical, LLC, M.D.,

Fla. 2012 (2012 WL 3778981).

The failure to file a privilege log can result in a waiver of the attorney-client privilege.8
T

However, that is not a common sanction, and Florida courts generally recognize that such
T

a sanction should be resorted to only when the violation i s serious.9 The failure to

submit a privilege log at the same time as a discovery response is served, does not waive

the privilege. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(5) does not detail the procedure to follow for service

5
Bankers Sec. Ins. Co. v. Symons, 889 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
6
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(B)(ii).
7
TIG Ins. Corp. of America v. Johnson, 799 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
8
Id.
9
Gosman v. Luzinski, 937 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“Attorney-client privilege and work-product immunity are important
protections in the adversarial legal system, and any breach of these privileges can give one party and undue advantage over the
other party. Florida’s courts generally recognize that an implicit waiver of an important privilege as a sanction for a discovery
violation should not be favored, but resorted to only when the violation is serious.”).

116
of privilege logs and does not specifically address the appropriate sanction to be imposed

if a party is tardy in filing a privilege log. If a party does not submit a privilege log within a

reasonable time before a hearing on the motion to compel, then the trial court can be

justified in finding a waiver because there would be no basis on which to assess the

privilege claim. A very late and inadequate privilege log could subject a party to waiver of

the privilege.10

A privilege log is not required until such time as broader, preliminary objections have T
T

been addressed. “A party is required to file a [privilege] log only if the information is

otherwise discoverable. Where the party claims that the production of documents is

burdensome and harassing . . . the scope of discovery is at issue. Until the court rules on

the request, the party responding to discovery does not know what will fall into the

category of discoverable documents . . .”11 Waiver does not apply where assertion of the

privilege is not document-specific, but category specific, and the category itself is plainly

protected.12

INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE : U

As communications technology advances (facsimile, e-mail, test, etc.), the

opportunities for inadvertent disclosure of lawyer-client privileged communications

increase. Inadvertent disclosure of lawyer-client privileged communications, and the

resultant issues of waiver and disqualification have been addressed by Florida courts

more frequently in recent years, and in 2010, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.285 was enacted, governing

the inadvertent disclosure of privileged materials. It was amended effective January 1,

10
Bainter v. League of Women Voters of Fla., 150 So. 3d 1115, 1129 (Fla. 2014).
11
Gosman, supra.
12
Nevin v. Palm Beach County School Board, 958 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); citing: Matlock v. Day, 907 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2005).

117
2011.13 The rule is self-explanatory. To preserve the privileges recognized by law, the

party must serve written notice of the assertion of privilege on the party to whom the

materials were disclosed, within 10 days of actually discovering the inadvertent

disclosure.14 The rule sets forth the duty of the party receiving such notice;15 the right to

challenge the assertion of the privilege;16 and, the effect of a determination that the

privilege applies.17

Florida law has always required the recipient of inadvertently disclosed attorney-
T T T

client privileged communications to act appropriately, or risk being disqualified from the

case.18 An attorney who promptly notifies the sender and immediately returns the

inadvertently produced materials without exercising any unfair advantage will, generally,

not be subject to disqualification.19

The recipient still has the right to challenge the claimed privilege on the basis of

waiver.20 The rule does not set forth any specific test to determine whether a waiver

occurred, however, the courts have addressed this issue in the past. To determine whether

the privilege has been waived due to inadvertent disclosure, Florida courts will apply the

“relevant circumstances” test. The test involves a factual determination, thus requiring an

evidentiary hearing. The court must consider:

(1) the reasonableness of the precautions taken to prevent inadvertent

disclosure in view of the extent of document production;
(2) the number of inadvertent disclosures;

13
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.285 Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged Materials.
14
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.285(a).
15
Fla. R. Civ P. 1.285(b).
16
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.285(c).
17
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.285(d).
18
See: Atlas Air, Inc. v. Greenberg Traurig, P.A., 997 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).
19
Abamar Housing & Development, Inc. v. Lisa Daly Lady Decor, 724 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); citing Fla. Bar Comm. On
Professional Ethics, OP. 93-3.
20
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.285(c)(4).

118
 (3) the extent of disclosure;
(4) any delay and measures taken to rectify the disclosures; and
(5) whether the overriding interests of justice would be served by relieving
a party of its error.21

One should note the court’s consideration of the “precautions taken to prevent
T T

inadvertent disclosure.” As communications are more commonly transmitted by

facsimile/e-mail, the prudent lawyer should carefully consider the protections in place ( or

not in place) at the recipient’s location. For example, many facsimile terminals are

used by large groups of people, and may not provide the necessary privacy for the

transmission of privileged communications. Facsimile and e-mail communications should,

at the very least, always include a lawyer-client privilege notice.22

Attorneys should also remember that they have ethical duties when they send and

receive electronic documents in the course of representing their clients. These ethical

responsibilities are now issues in the practice of law where lawyers may be able to “mine”

metadata from electronic documents. Lawyers may also receive electronic documents that

reveal metadata without any effort on the part of the receiving attorney. Metadata is

information about information and has been defined as information describing the history,

tracking, or management of an electronic document.

Metadata can contain information about the author of a document, and can

show, among other things, the changes made to a document during its drafting, including

what was deleted from or added to the final version of the document, as well as comments

of the various reviewers of the document. Metadata may thereby reveal confidential and

privileged client information that the sender of the document or electronic communication

does not wish to be revealed.

21
Lightbourne v. McCollum, 969 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2007).
22
See: Nova Southeastern University, Inc. v. Jacobson, 25 So. 3d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).

119
 In response, The Florida Bar issued Ethics Opinion 06-2 (September 15, 2006),

which provides as follows:

A lawyer who is sending an electronic document

should take care to ensure the confidentiality of all
information contained in the document, including
metadata. A lawyer receiving an electronic document
should not try to obtain information from metadata
that the lawyer knows or should know is not intended for
the receiving lawyer. A lawyer who inadvertently
receives information via metadata in an electronic
document should notify the sender of the information’s
receipt. The opinion is not intended to address
metadata in the context of discovery documents.

Inadvertent disclosure does not always involve disclosure to the opposing party. T T

Privileged materials may be inadvertently disclosed to a party’s own expert. In that

circumstance, a party does not automatically waive the privilege simply by furnishing

protected or privileged material. The court will consider whether the expert relied upon

the material in forming his or her opinion.23

THIRD PARTY BAD FAITH ACTIONS :

U U

The lawyer-client privilege between an insurer, the insured and insured’s counsel T T

is not waived in a third party bad faith action. Since the insured is not the party bringing

the action, it does not waive the privilege.24

EXAMINATION UNDER OATH : U

The lawyer-client privilege has been held to apply to an examination under oath

(“EUO”), conducted by an insurer with its insured. The statements made during the

examination were not discoverable in a subsequent criminal case involving the

23
Mullins v. Tompkins, 15 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009).
24
Progressive v. Scoma, 975 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“Few evidentiary privileges are as jealously guarded as the attorney-
client privilege. Permitting a third party who brings a bad faith claim to abrogate the attorney-client privilege previously held by the
insured and insurer would seem to undermine the policy reasons for having such a privilege, such as encouraging open and
unguarded discussions between counsel and client as they prepare for litigation.”).

120
insured, and, the presence of criminal defense counsel at the EUO did not waive the
T T

privilege.25

REVIEW OF PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS FOR DEPOSITION : U

Documents used to refresh testimony prior to testifying are discoverable unless

T T

otherwise privileged. Therefore, the use of lawyer-client privileged documents to refresh

testimony prior to testifying does not waive the privilege. However, the privilege would be

waived if the same documents were used to refresh testimony while testifying.26

25
Reynolds v. State, 963 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (“The examination is part of the insurer’s fact gathering for the dual
purposes of (1) defending the insured, and (2) determining whether the policy covers the incident giving rise to the claim against the
insured.”).
26
Proskauer Rose v. Boca Airport, Inc., 987 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008).

121
CHAPTER ELEVEN
EXPERT WITNESS DISCOVERY

Introduction

If scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in

understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an

expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify about it in the form

of an opinion or otherwise, if:

1. The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data;

2. The testimony is the product of reliable principles and

methods; and

3. The witness has applied the principles and methods reliably

to the facts of the case.1

Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not

objectionable because it includes an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.2

The facts or data upon which an expert bases an opinion may be those perceived

by, or made known to, the expert at or before the trial. If the facts or data are of a type

reasonable relied upon by experts in the subject to support the opinion expressed, the facts

or data need not be admissible in evidence.3

Like any witness, an expert is subject to impeachment, as is the testimony the expert

presents. Challenges to the expert’s qualifications and the validity of an opinion may be

made to the court in its gatekeeper role; and, if the opinion is allowed, challenges may be

made before the trier of fact. Experts in general are qualified to render opinions based on

1
Fla. Stat. § 90.702 (2015).
2
Fla. Stat. § 90.703 (2015).
3
Fla. Stat. § 90.704 (2015).

122
their experience, background, and training. In medical malpractice actions, the law

imposes additional requirements to ensure that the expert has the necessary expertise.4

General challenges to the qualifications of the expert include the knowledge, skill,

experience, training, or education of the witness. As the gatekeepers, trial courts have

considerable discretion in determining whether an expert is qualified to give an opinion in a

given case, but in fact rarely will the expert be excluded on general challenges to

qualification. The court should not exclude an expert's opinion based on matters that go to

the weight of the opinion because it is the exclusive province of the jury to weigh the

evidence.5

Challenges that go to the weight of the opinions of an expert include the reasons

given by the witness for the opinion expressed, the reasonableness of the opinion in light of

all surrounding facts and circumstances, whether the opinion differs from that of other

qualified experts or recognized authorities and treatises, and any relationship or

circumstance that may give rise to bias on the part of the expert.6 These factors require

discovery broad enough for the opposing party to challenge the expert and the expert

testimony.

In 2013, the Florida Legislature amended Fla. Stat. § 90.702 and stated in the

preamble to the amendment that it intended to adopt as standards for expert testimony to

be used by the courts of this state to be those as provided in Daubert v. Merrell Dow

Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1993), General

Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S. Ct. 512, 139 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1997), and Kumho

Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 143 L. Ed. 2d 238 (1999), and
4
E.g., Fla. Stat. § 766.102(5).
5 st
See, e.g., Univ. of Fla. Bd. of Trs. v. Stone, 92 So. 3d 264, 272 (Fla. 1 DCA 2012).
6
For example, bias can be shown in the form of financial remuneration for testifying, financial or business interest in supporting the
opinions expressed, a relationship between the witness and a party or counsel, etc.

123
to no longer apply the standard in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). The

Florida Supreme Court is currently considering whether to adopt the amendment as a rule

of evidence, to the extent that it is procedural.

As gatekeeper, the trial court, upon objection, must determine whether Daubert

applies, and, if so, whether the testimony of the expert is admissible under Daubert

standards. The details of the analysis required to challenge or support opinions is beyond

the scope of this work.

Discussion

Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(5)(A) discovery of facts known and opinions held

by experts, otherwise discoverable under the provisions of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1)

(scope of discovery) and acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial, may

be obtained only as follows:

(A)(i) By interrogatories a party may require a party (a) to identify each

person whom the party expects to call as an expert witness at trial and (b) to
state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and (c) to
state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected
to testify and (d) to provide a summary of the grounds for each opinion.
(ii) Any person disclosed by interrogatories or otherwise as a person
expected to be called as an expert witness at trial may be deposed in
accordance with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.390 without motion or order of court.
(iii) A party may obtain the following discovery regarding any person
disclosed by interrogatories or otherwise as a person expected to be called
as an expert witness at trial: (1) The scope of employment in the pending
case and the compensation for such service; (2) The expert's general
litigation experience, including the percentage of work performed for plaintiffs
and defendants. (3) The identity of other cases, within a reasonable time
period, in which the expert has testified by deposition or at trial; and (4) An
approximation of the portion of the expert's involvement as an expert witness,
which may be based on the number of hours, percentage of hours, or
percentage of earned income derived from serving as an expert witness;
however, the expert shall not be required to disclose his or her earnings as
an expert witness or income derived from other services.

124
Under the same rule, an expert may be required to produce financial and business records

only under the most unusual or compelling circumstances and may not be compelled to

compile or produce nonexistent documents. Upon motion, the court may order further

discovery by other means, subject to such restrictions as to scope and other provisions

pursuant to subdivision (b)(5)(C) of the rule concerning fees and expenses as the court

may deem appropriate. The referenced rules confine both the discovery methods that can

be employed when directed to expert witnesses and the subject matter of discovery. By its

terms the rule allows a party to obtain information about another party’s expert initially only

through the vehicle of interrogatories.7

A party may attack the credibility of a witness by exposing a potential bias.8 A

financial relationship between the expert and a party, an agent for a party, or counsel for a

party is an area often explored to attempt to uncover possible bias. In the years up to the

mid-1990’s, trial courts permitted broad discovery into the private financial affairs of experts

far beyond what was reasonably necessary to fairly litigate the potential for bias, and which

was invasive and harassing and threatened to chill the willingness of experts to become

involved in litigation. In Syken v. Elkins,9 experts retained to provide compulsory medical

examinations (CME) were ordered by the trial court to produce expansive private financial

information, including tax returns, and information regarding patients who were examined

for purposes of litigation in unrelated actions. On certiorari appeal, the appellate court, en

banc, quashed the trial court order, holding that the required information was overly

burdensome, caused annoyance and embarrassment, and provided little useful

information. The Court fashioned criteria for financial discovery and a methodology that

7 th
Smith v. Eldred, 96 So. 3d 1102 (Fla. 4 DCA 2012).
8
Fla. Stat. § 90.608(2) (2015).
9
644 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994), approved, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996)

125
balanced a party's need to obtain financial bias discovery from an expert with the need to

protect their privacy rights. The criteria governing the discovery of financial information from

expert witnesses adopted by Elkins are as follows:

1. The medical expert may be deposed either orally or by

written deposition.

2. The expert may be asked as to the pending case, what he or

she has been hired to do and what the compensation is to be.

3. The expert may be asked what expert work he or she

generally does. Is the work performed for the plaintiffs,
defendants, or some percentage of each.

4. The expert may be asked to give an approximation of the

portion of their professional time or work devoted to service as
an expert. This can be a fair estimate of some reasonable and
truthful component of that work, such as hours expended, or
percentage of income earned from that source, or the
approximate number of IME's that he or she performs in one
year. The expert need not answer how much money he or she
earns as an expert or how much the expert's total annual
income is.

5. The expert may be required to identify specifically each case

in which he or she has actually testified, whether by deposition
or at trial, going back a reasonable period of time, which is
normally three years. A longer period of time may be inquired
into under some circumstances.

6. The production of the expert's business records, files, and

1099's may be ordered produced only upon the most unusual
or compelling circumstance.

7. The patient's privacy must be observed.

8. An expert may not be compelled to compile or produce

nonexistent documents.

The Florida Supreme Court adopted in full the Third District's criteria in Elkins, and

subsequently the methodology was codified in part in Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(5)(A). The

purpose of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(5)(A) is to protect experts from the annoyance,

126
embarrassment, oppression, undue burden, or expense associated with discovery of

financial information. In general, without making any finding of "the most unusual or

compelling circumstances" that might justify the production of financial or business records,

the trial court may not order an expert to produce financial and business records beyond

that allowed by the rule.10 The purpose of financial discovery is to expose potential bias to

the jury, and normally the information available from discovery had under Fla. R. Civ. P.

1.280(b)(5)(A) is sufficient to accomplish that purpose.11

Several years following Elkins, the Supreme Court decided Allstate Insurance Co. v.

Boecher.12 In Boecher, an insured sought discovery from his insurance company of the

identity of cases and amount of fees paid to its expert reconstruction and injury causation

expert during the preceding three years. The Supreme Court held that the Elkins

limitations could not be used to shield the discovery sought from a party regarding its

financial relationship with the expert and stated:

The information sought here would reveal how often the expert
testified on Allstate’s behalf and how much money the expert
made from its relationship with Allstate. The Information
sought in this case does not just lead to the discovery of
admissible information. The information requested is directly
relevant to a party’s efforts to demonstrate to the jury the
witness’s bias.

The more extensive the financial relationship between a party

and a witness, the more it is likely that the witness has a
vested interest in that financially beneficial relationship
continuing. A jury is entitled to know the extent of the financial
connection between the party and the witness, and the
cumulative amount a party has paid an expert during their
relationship. A party is entitled to argue to the jury that a
witness might be more likely to testify favorably on behalf of the

10 th
Grabel v. Sterrett, 163 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 4 DCA 2015).
11
Id.
12
733 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1999).

127
 party because of the witness’s financial incentive to continue
the financially advantageous relationship.

In this case Boecher attempted to discover facts known directly

by Allstate concerning the extent of Allstate’s relationship with
its expert witness. We find no indication from either the
language of Rule 1.280(b)(4) or our opinion in Elkins that the
rule was intended to shield a party from revealing the extent of
its relationship with an expert witness.

Because the discovery in Boecher sought information from the party regarding its

relationship with a particular expert, the court found that the analysis changed and the

balance of interests shifted in favor of allowing the discovery.

While Rule 1.280(b)(5)(A)(iii) was drafted to protect retained experts only, a treating

physician expert is entitled to similar protection from overly intrusive general financial bias

discovery.13 Cases in which there is evidence of a referral relationship between a physician

and lawyer may result in the need for financial discovery beyond that provided by Fla. R.

Civ. P. 1.280(b)(5)(A) from both the law firm and the doctor.14

The situation in which a physician treats a patient on referral from a lawyer has been

addressed in a number of cases. In one respect, the physician is a "fact" witness, a

treating physician. In another respect, the same physician often provides expert opinions at

trial regarding the permanency of injuries, prognosis, and the need for future treatment. In

such cases, the physician is not merely a witness retained to give an expert opinion about

an issue at trial and is not a typical treating physician that a patient independently sought

out.15 A lawyer referred the patient to the physician in anticipation of litigation and therefore

the physician has injected himself into the litigation, and the witness potentially has a stake

13 th
Steinger, Iscoe & Greene, P.A. v GEICO Gen. Ins. Co., 103 So. 3d 200, 203-04 (Fla. 4 DCA 2012).
14
Id. at 547
15
See Katzman v. Rediron Fabrication, Inc., 76 So. 3d 1060, 1064 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011).

128
in the outcome of the litigation because of the referral by the lawyer, which provides the

“compelling circumstances” to expand discovery beyond that provided by rule.16

A law firm’s financial relationship with a doctor is discoverable on the issue of bias.17

Discovery seeking to establish that a financial relationship exists should first be sought from

a party, a treating doctor, or other witnesses—not the party’s legal counsel. Once there is

evidence that a referral relationship exists, discovery from the law firm may be appropriate,

with the trial court balancing the privacy rights of the former patients and clients, and

implementing appropriate safeguards. Where a testifying expert doctor in deposition

denied having any records and provided “nebulous testimony” in connection with the

number of his patients who were represented by the law firm, the law firm became an

appropriate source of the necessary information.18

Discovery of Non-Party Medical Records

Privacy rights, statutory law,19 and common sense dictate that discovery of non-

party medical records and information is severely restricted.20 The issue has arisen most

often in association with experts who do a Compulsory Medical Examination and are asked

to provide records or information from records of CME’s for other patients. Simply redacting

the names of patients does not necessarily resolve privacy and patient confidentiality

issues, and the issues of undue burden and relevance are also associated with such

16
Id.
17 th
Worley v. Cent. Fla. YMCA, 163 So. 3d 1240 (Fla. 5 DCA 2015).
18
Id; Lytal, Reiter, Smith, Ivey & Fronrath, L.L.P. v. Malay, 133 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014).
19
Fla. Stat. § 456.057(7)(a)(3)(prohibits the disclosure of nonparty CME reports without prior notice to all of the affected nonparties);
Graham v. Dacheikh, 991 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)(disclosure is disclosure whether it is production of records or through
deposition testimony).
20
Crowley v. Lamming, 66 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)(trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law when it
ordered CME doctor to bring the CME reports of nonparties to his deposition and to testify to some of the information contained in
those reports); USAA Casualty Insurance Co. v. Callery, 66 So. 3d 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)(it was departure from essential
requirements of the law to enter an order compelling an insurance company party to produce CME results from CME doctor’s last 20
exams for the party with all patient-identifying information redacted and only including the physician's conclusions/impressions, the
physician's signature, the date of report, and the name and address of the receiving attorney). See also Coopersmith v. Perrine, 91
th
So. 3d 246 (Fla. 4 DCA 2012)(similar denial of discovery where the nonparty CME patient information was requested from a party
as opposed to the CME physician).

129
requests. Section 456.057(7)(a)(3) Fla. Stat. (2015), as it has been interpreted and applied

in Florida courts, creates "a broad and express privilege of confidentiality as to the medical

records and the medical condition of a patient." The clear terms of the statute prohibit the

production of a nonparty patient's medical records and they prohibit discussion about a

nonparty patient's medical condition without prior notice to that nonparty.21 Likewise, an

interrogatory to a party requesting that the party furnish a "general summary of the opinions

and basis of the opinions" offered by his medical experts in other cases has been found to

invade the privacy rights of non-parties, as protected by the referenced statute.22

Discovery from Expert Not Testifying in Trial

While a party is entitled to reasonable discovery from and about a testifying expert

witness, such access changes when the expert is withdrawn from the witness list. A party

is entitled to discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained by

a party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not expected to testify

at trial, only as provided in Rule 1.360(b). Alternatively, such discovery may be had upon a

showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking

discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means. Thus, an expert

witness that is not expected to testify in trial may not be deposed except upon such a

showing of exceptional circumstances. Where a party, through answers to expert

interrogatories, initially disclosed a particular doctor as an expert who would testify as a

witness at trial, but later withdrew the doctor's name and he was no longer a witness who

21
Crowley, supra at 358.
22 th
Coopersmith v. Perrine, 91 So. 3d 246 (Fla 4 DCA 2012).

130
would be called at trial, it would be error for a judge to compel the doctor’s deposition

absent a showing of compelling circumstance.23

23
Rocca v. Rones, 125 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013).

131
 SIGNIFICANT CASES INVOLVING THE BREADTH AND SCOPE OF
EXPERT WITNESS DISCOVERY

Syken v. Elkins, 644 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994). En banc, the appellate court
reviewed trial court orders requiring defendant’s trial experts to produce, among many other
things, certain 1099s and P.A. federal income tax returns, as well as information regarding
patients who were examined for purposes of litigation in unrelated matters. In quashing the
orders, the court concluded that decisions in the field have gone too far in permitting
burdensome inquiry into the financial affairs of physicians and established eight criteria
limiting discovery of an opposing medical expert for impeachment. One of the limiting
criteria was that production of the experts business records, files, and 1099s may be
ordered produced only upon the most unusual or compelling circumstances. The court
commented that the problem the criteria addresses is the attempt by litigators to
demonstrate the possibility of a medical expert’s bias through “overkill discovery,” to prove
a point easily demonstrable by less burdensome and invasive means, and that production
of the information ordered in the cases before them caused annoyance and
embarrassment while providing little information.
 
  Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996). On conflict certiorari review , the
supreme court acknowledged that the issues presented in the case were an expanding
problem, approved what the court called a well-reasoned decision, adopted in full the
criteria governing the discovery of financial information from expert witnesses in an effort to
prevent the annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, undue burden or expense, claimed on
behalf of medical experts, and directed that the criteria be made part of the commentary to
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280. The court stated that discovery was never intended to be used as a
tactical tool to harass an adversary in a manner that actually chills the availability of
information by non-party witnesses.

Allstate v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993 (Fla. 1999). Conflict certiorari review of
appellate decisions, one sustaining a trial court’s order overruling Allstate’s objections to
interrogatories directed to it seeking the identity of cases in which its expert had performed
analyses and rendered opinions for Allstate nationally in the preceding three years, and the
amount of fees paid to that expert nationally during that same period. In approving that
order, the court held that neither its decision in Elkins nor Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii)
prevents this type of discovery. The court pointed out that, unlike the information requested
in Elkins, which related to the extent of the expert’s relationships with others, the specific
information sought from Allstate in this case pertained to the expert’s ongoing relationship
with Allstate. The court further stated that the information requested was directly relevant
to the party’s efforts to demonstrate to the jury the witness’s bias.

132
 Katzman v. Rediron, 76 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). Defendant sought
discovery form Dr. Katzman, plaintiff’s treating physician, regarding how often he had
ordered discectomies over the past four years (the procedure performed on both plaintiffs
after an auto accident, on referral from plaintiffs’ attorney, and under letters of protection),
and what he had charged to perform it in litigation and non-litigation cases. Dr. Katzman
objected and argued that the discovery was overbroad and exceeded the financial
discovery permitted from retained experts under the discovery rules and Elkins v. Syken,
672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996). The circuit court ruled that Dr. Katzman must respond and
provide information as to the number of patients and what amount of money he collected
from health insurance companies and under letters of protection, over the preceding four
years. The appellate court held that since a lawyer referred the patient to the physician in
anticipation of litigation the physician had injected himself into the litigation, and the
circumstance would allow the defendant to explore possible bias on the part of the doctor.
It agreed that Elkins discovery should generally provide sufficient discovery into such
financial bias. The appellate court further held that the discovery sought is not relevant
merely to show that the witness may be biased based on an ongoing financial relationship
with a party or lawyer, but was relevant to a discrete issue, whether the expert had
performed an allegedly unnecessary and costly procedure with greater frequency in
litigation cases, and whether he allegedly overcharged for the medical services at issue, a
substantive issue being the reasonableness of the cost and necessity of the procedure. In
the Court’s view, it meets the requirements of “unusual and compelling circumstances,” and
denied the petition to quash the discovery order.

Katzman v. Ranjana Corp., 90 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).Certiorari review of
trial court order allowing discovery by subpoena duces tecum to Dr. Katzman, plaintiff’s
treating physician on referral from another physician, that included voluminous information
covering four years concerning the number of times he performed four different surgeries,
the amounts he had collected from health insurance coverage on an annual basis over four
years regarding the type of surgeries (four) performed on plaintiff, and the number of
patients and amounts received each year under letters of protection from attorneys. Dr.
Katzman provided medical services pursuant to a letter of protection from her attorney. Dr.
Katzman objected to the subpoena on the basis that it sought unrelated information, and
confidential private business and financial records which exceeded the scope of
permissible discovery under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280 as well as Elkins v. Sykens, 672 So. 2d
517 (Fla. 1996). He also asserted that the requests were extremely burdensome and
would require thousands of man hours and dollars to comply. In denying the motion for
protective order the trial court held, among other things, that the doctor potentially has a
stake in the outcome of the litigation and had injected himself in the litigation by virtue of
the letter of protection from plaintiff’s attorney. In quashing the order, the appellate court
said that the trial court did not have the benefit of the appellate court’s revised opinion in
Rediron when it entered its order, and thus had not seen that part of the revised opinion

133
stating that it was the referral, not the letter of protection, that injects a doctor into litigation.
On remand, the trial court was instructed to reconsider all of the objections raised by the
doctor against the back drop of the clarified Rediron opinion, and that the trial court should
consider petitioner’s argument of undue burden, since requiring information on four surgical
procedures is far more extensive and potentially burdensome than the “limited intrusions”
found in Rediron.

Smith v. Eldred, 96 So. 3d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Trial court overruled
defendant’s objection to plaintiff’s Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena and Notice of
Service of Expert Witness Request for Production directed to defendant’s liability expert.
Defendant asserted that Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(4) does not allow a party to serve a
subpoena or a request for production, and that a party may request the court to seek
discovery of financial or business records by other means, but only when unusual or
compelling circumstances exist. The appellate court agreed, quashed the order, and stated
that Rule 1.280(b)(4) means what it says and says what it means, that the rule confines
both the discovery methods that can be employed when directed to expert witnesses and
the subject matter of that discovery, and that a request for productions is simply NOT a
method condoned by the rule except upon motion.

Steinger v. Geico, 103 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). The trial court ordered
plaintiff’s law firm to produce discovery pertaining to the law firm’s relationship with four of
plaintiff’s treating physicians who would render expert opinions on matters such as
causation, permanency, and future damages. The production requests included all records
of payments by the firm to these doctors, as well as all letters of protection to them. Client
names could be redacted in cases that settled or where no lawsuit was filed. The appellate
court stated that where there is a preliminary showing that the plaintiff was referred to the
doctor by the lawyer (whether directly or through a third party) or vice versa, the defendant
is entitled to discover information regarding the extent of the relationship between the law
firm and the doctor with the trial court balancing the privacy rights of the former patients and
clients, and implementing appropriate safeguards. “Normally, discovery seeking to
establish that a referral has occurred should first be sought from the party, the treating
doctor or other witnesses, not the party’s legal counsel. We do not suggest, however, that
the law firm may never be a primary source for such discovery where, as here, the doctor
has no records or provides nebulous testimony about the doctor’s past dealings with the
referring law firm.” The appellate court further stated: “We do not suggest that all financial
discovery from a physician who also serves as an expert in litigation must always be limited
to those matter listed in Rule 1.280(b)(5)(A). We stress that the limitations of financial bias
discovery from expert witnesses cannot be used as a shield to prevent discovery of
relevant information from a material witness – such as a treating physician. The rule limits
discovery of the general financial information of the witness where it is sought solely to
establish bias. However, trial courts have discretion to order additional discovery where

134
relevant to a discrete issue in a case. See Rediron, 76 So. 3d at 1064-65.” Since from the
record the Court was unable to determine whether defendant had established the existence
of a referral relationship between the doctors and the law firm, it granted the petition,
stating that it was premature to order more extensive financial bias discovery, and
remanded the case for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Pack v. Geico, 119 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013). Plaintiff sought a new trial
after a defense verdict alleging error when the trial court denied her motion in limine and
permitted the defendant to introduce into evidence a letter of protection between her and
her physician, who testified as her expert witness on her claim of more serious injuries to
her neck. Plaintiff argued that evidence of a letter of protection, absent a referral
relationship from the lawyer to the doctor, was not relevant according to the Court’s prior
ruling in Katzman v. Rediron, 76 So. 3d 1060 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). The appellate court
acknowledged that in Katzman it held that a letter of protection was not sufficient in itself to
allow discovery of an expert beyond that permissible under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(4)(A).
However, the Court stated that in Katzman it did not hold that a letter of protection is not
relevant to show potential bias, and affirmed the trial court’s ruling denying plaintiff’s motion
for new trial.

Lytal v. Malay, 133 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). The trial court ordered
plaintiff’s law firm to provide a list of all payments made to plaintiff’s treating expert, who
was expected to provide expert opinions at trial, with all client and patient information
redacted. At his deposition, the doctor denied having any records and provided “nebulous
testimony” in connection with the number of patients who were represented by the law firm.
The court held that under these circumstances the law firm was an appropriate source of
this information, citing the Steinger case, and denied the petition to quash the discovery
order.

Brown v. Mittelman, 152 So. 3d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Defense counsel, in a
case arising from an automobile accident, subpoenaed the person in one of plaintiff’s
treating physician’s office with the most billing knowledge, to produce documents regarding
patients previously represented by both of plaintiff’s law firms, LOP cases, and referrals
from both law firms. One of plaintiff’s attorneys had referred her to that doctor, who treated
her under a LOP agreement. The trial court overruled the doctor’s objections to the
subpoena. The appellate court stated that because Rule 1.280(b)(5) did not apply to the
requested discovery, and because “a law firm’s financial relationship with a doctor is
discoverable on the issue of bias” the petition for certiorari was denied. The court pointed
out that a party may attack the credibility of a witness by exposing a potential bias. §
90.608(2), Fla. Stat. (2009). The court noted that the financial relationship between the
treating doctor and plaintiff’s attorneys in present and past cases creates the potential for
bias and discovery of such relationship is permissible. The discovery available under Rule

135
1.280(b)(5) does not compel full disclosure of a treating physician’s potential bias, but
limits financial discovery to an approximation of the portion of the expert’s involvement as
an expert witness based on data such as the percentage of earned income derived from
serving as an expert witness. A physician’s continued financial interest in treating other
patients referred by a particular law firm could conceivably be a source of bias “not
immediately apparent to a jury,” Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. Pope, 798 So. 2d 1 (Fla.
DCA 2001), at 3. Rule 1.280(b)(5) neither addresses or circumscribes discovery of this
financial relationship. Also, the court stated that whether the law firm directly referred the
patient to the treating doctor does not determine whether discovery of the doctor/law firm
relationship is allowed, and pointed out that a potential bias arising from a letter of
protection exists independent of any referral relationship, as does a doctor’s referral
arrangements with a law firm in other cases.

Grabel v. Sterrett, 163 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Dr. Grabel, a medical
expert retained by State Farm to conduct a CME in an uninsured motorist claim, petitioned
the court to grant certiorari and quash an order of the circuit court that overruled his
objections to a subpoena duces tecum. The order required the expert to produce copies of
all billing invoices submitted to State Farm and its attorneys for the past three years; to
produce any existing document and/or statement that included the total amount of money
paid by or on behalf of State Farm or its attorneys for work the expert had performed as an
expert witness on their behalf for the past three years; and to produce all documents
evidencing the amount or percentage of worked performed by Dr. Grabel on behalf of any
defendant or their defense attorneys, during the last three years, including time records,
invoices, 1099s or other income reporting documents. In granting certiorari and quashing
the order, the appellate court held that without making any finding of “the most unusual or
compelling circumstances” that might justify the production of financial and business
records, the trial court ordered the doctor to produce financial and business records beyond
that allowed by the rule and Elkins. V. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996). The court
pointed out that plaintiff had obtained, or could obtain, records regarding payments from the
insurer to the doctor pursuant to Allstate v. Boecher, and that this is more than sufficient
information to reveal any potential bias.

Worley v. Central Florida YMCA, 163 So. 3d 1240 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). During the
discovery process in a slip and fall case, Morgan & Morgan tenaciously opposed all
attempts by defendant to learn how plaintiff became a patient of certain medical care
providers. After hearings on various discovery requests by defendant, the trial court
entered an order that required plaintiff to produce “the names of any and all cases
(including plaintiff, defense, court and case number) where a client was referred directly or
indirectly by any Morgan & Morgan attorney” to the relevant treating physicians in the
present case, which necessarily included information on whether plaintiff in the pending
case was referred by Morgan & Morgan to her treating physicians. The appellate court

136
concluded that the order did not depart from the essential requirements of law, especially
considering that YMCA had sufficiently demonstrated a good faith basis for suspecting that
a referral relationship existed. “The limited type of discovery presently at issue concerns
only the existence of a referral relationship between Morgan & Morgan and the treating
physicians in this case,” which is directly relevant to the potential bias of the physicians.
The appellate court further held that: “Having exhausted all other avenues without success
we find – contrary to the trial court’s preliminary ruling and to Burt v. Geico, 603 So. 2d 125
(Fla. 2d DCA 1992) – that it was appropriate for YMCA to ask Worley if she was referred to
the relevant physicians by her counselor or her counselor’s firm.”

Grabel v. Roura, 4D15-194, (Fla 4th DCA 2015). The trial court, finding that the
deposition responses of the defense expert witness were inconsistent with the interrogatory
answers provided by defense counsel regarding the percentage of income the doctor
derived from working as an expert and the number of times he has testified for plaintiffs and
defendants in personal injury litigation, concluded that these inconsistencies constituted
“the most unusual or compelling circumstances” that allowed production of the expert’s
financial and business records. The trial court allowed plaintiff to issue subpoenas to
twenty non-party insurance carriers, not shown to have any involvement in the litigation,
requiring production of financial records (including tax records) showing the total amount of
fees paid to the doctor for expert litigation services since 2009. The appellate court
quashed the order, stating that this extensive financial discovery as to a retained expert
exceeded that allowed by the rule and was unnecessary, pointing out that the rule
expressly provides that “the expert shall not be required to disclose his or her earnings as
an expert witness.” The appellate court further held that the alleged inconsistencies do not
constitute “unusual or compelling circumstance” to warrant such broad financial disclosure,
as there was no showing that the inconsistencies were the result of falsification,
misrepresentation, or obfuscation.

137
 CITATION INDEX

5 
5500 North Corp. v. Willis, 729 So. 2d 508, 514 (Fla. Baker v. Myers Tractor Services, Inc., 765 So. 2d 149
5th DCA 1999), 43 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), 21 
Bandorf v. Volusia County Dept. of Corrections, 939
So. 2d 249, 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006), 59, 61
A  Bank One, N.A. v. Harrod, 873 So. 2d 519, 521 (Fla.
4th DCA 2004), 12
Abamar Housing & Development, Inc. v. Lisa Daly
Lady Decor, 724 So. 2d 572 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), Bankers Sec. Ins. Co. v. Symons, 889 So. 2d 93 (Fla.
118 5th DCA 2004), 116
Aldrich v. Roche Biomedical Laboratories. Inc., 737 Barnett Bank v. Dottie-G. Dev. Corp., 645 So. 2d 573
So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), 16, 17 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), 32
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121, 1129-30 Barnett v. Barnett, 718 So. 2d 302, 304 (Fla. 2d DCA
(Fla. 2005), 37 1998), 11 
Allstate Insurance Co. v. Boecher, 733 So. 2d 993 Bartell v. McCarrick, 498 So. 2d 1378 (Fla. 4th DCA
(Fla. 1999), 54, 127, 128 132, 136 1986), 50, 51, 52, 53 
Amato v. Intindola, 854 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 4th DCA Bass v. City of Pembroke Pines, 991 So. 2d 1008
2003), 28 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), 27 
American Hospitality Management Co. of Minnesota Belmont v. North Broward Hosp. Dist., 727 So. 2d
v. Hettiger, 904 So. 2d 547, 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), 992, 994 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), 5, 58 
77          Bertrand v. Belhomme, 892 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA
American Pioneer Casualty Insurance Co. v. Henrion, 2005), 2, 26 
523 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988), 10 Bestechnologies, Inc. v. Trident Envtl. Sys., Inc., 681
Ameriwood v. Liberman, 2006 WL 3825291, 2006 So. 2d 1175, 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), 37 
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93380 (E.D. Mo., Dec. 27, 2006), Binger v. King Pest Control, 401 So. 2d 1310 (Fla.
92  1981), 2, 6
Amlan, Inc. v. Detroit Diesel Corp., 651 So. 2d 701 Blackford v. Florida Power & Light Co., 681 So. 2d
(Fla. 4th DCA 1995), 3  795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), 2 
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Davis, 2006 WL Blagrove v. Smith, 701 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 5th DCA
3837518 (S.D. Tex., Dec. 28, 2006), 92 1997), 48 
Anchor Nat’l Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Smeltz, 546 So. 2d Bob Montgomery Real Estate v. Djokic, 858 So. 2d
760, 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), 32  371 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), 28
Antico v. Sindt Trucking, Inc., 148 So. 3d 163 (Fla. 1st Bologna v. Schlanger, 995 So. 2d 526 (Fla. 5th DCA
DCA 2014), 70, 92, 94 2008), 29 
Arthrex, Inc. v. Parcus Medical, LLC, M.D., Fla. 2012 Bright House Networks, LLC v. Cassidy, 129 So. 3d
(2012 WL 3778981), 116  501, 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), 35
Arthur Finnieston, Inc. v. Pratt, 673 So. 2d 560, 562 Bro-Tech Corp. v. Thermax, Inc., 2008 WL 724627
(Fla. 3d DCA 1996),  36  (E.D. Pa. March 17, 2008), 92
Arzola v. Reigosa, 534 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA Brown v. Allstate Ins. Co., 838 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 5th
1988), 58, 59 DCA 2003), 30 
Brown v. Mittelman, 152 So. 3d 602 (Fla. 4th DCA
Arzuman v. Saud, 843 So. 2d 950 (Fla. 4th DCA
2014), 135 
2003), 28 
Brown v. Montanez, 90 So. 3d 982, (Fla. 4th DCA
Atlas Air, Inc. v. Greenberg Traurig, P.A., 997 So. 2d
2012), 61, 62
1117 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), 118 
Broyles v. Reilly, 695 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997),
Attorney Ad Litem for D.K. v. Parents of D.K., 780 So.
51, 52, 53 
2d 301, 305-306 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), 58 
Burt v. Geico, 603 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992),
Austin v. Liquid Distributors, Inc., 928 So. 2d 521 (Fla.
137 
3d DCA 2006), 25
Burt v. S.P. Healthcare Holdings, LLC (citation
Auto Owners Insurance Co. v. Clark, 676 So. 2d 3
pending), 5 
(Fla. 4th DCA 1996), 5
Byxbee v. Reyes, 850 So. 2d 595, 596 (Fla. 4th DCA
2003), 59, 60
B 
Bainter v. League of Women Voters of Fla., 150 So.
3d 1115, 1129 (Fla. 2014), 1, 117

138
 C  Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509
U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786, 125 L. Ed. 2d 469
Canaveras v. Continental Group, Ltd., 896 So. 2d 855 (1993), 123 
(Fla. 3d DCA 2005), 26  David J. Burton, D.M.D., P.A. v. Becker, 516 So. 2d
Canella v. Bryant, 235 So. 2d 328 (Fla. 4th DCA 283 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), 61 
1970), 40 Diaz v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 137 So. 3d 1195 (Fla.
Cape Cave Corporation v. Charlotte Asphalt. Inc., 384 3d DCA 2014), 19, 24
So. 2d 1300, 1301 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), 11  Dimeglio v. Briggs-Mugrauer, 708 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 2d
Capital One, N.A. v. Forbes, 34 So. 3d 209, 213 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998), 49
DCA 2010), 36 Distefano v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 846 So.
Carr v. Reese, 788 So. 2d 1067, 1072 (Fla. 2d DCA 2d 572 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003), 21 
2001), 12  District Board of Trustees of Miami-Dade County
Carrero v. Engle Homes, Inc., 667 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. College v. Chao, 739 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 3d DCA
4th DCA 1996), 7  1999), 37
Carson v. Jackson, 466 So. 2d 1188, 1191 (Fla. 4th Don Mott Agency, Inc. v. Pullum, 352 So. 2d 107 (Fla.
DCA 1985), 58  2d DCA 1977), 39
Castellano v. Winthrop, 27 So. 3d 134 (Fla. 5th DCA Drakeford v. Barnett Bank of Tampa, 694 So. 2d 822,
2010), 90  824 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), 11 
Cedars Healthcare Group, Ltd. v. Freeman, 829 So. DYC Fishing, Ltd. v. Martinez, 994 So. 2d 461, 462
2d 390, 391 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002, 58  (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), 2 
Central Square Tarragon LLC v. Great Divide
Insurance Company, 82 So. 3d 911 (Fla. 4th DCA
2001), 5 
E 
Chacha v. Transp. USA, Inc., 78 So. 3d 727 (Fla. 4th E. I. DuPont DeNemours & Co. v. Sidran, 140 So. 3d
DCA 2012), 27 620, (Fla. 3d DCA 2014), 18, 23, 70
Channel Components, Inc. v. America II Electronics, Eastern Airlines. Inc. v. Dixon, 310 So. 2d 336 (Fla.
Inc., 915 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2nd DCA 2005), 2 3d DCA 1975), 4 
Cherubino v. Fenstersheib & Fox, P.A., 925 So. 2d Edlund v. Seagull Townhomes Condominium
1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), 27 Assoc., Inc., 928 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA
Coburn v. PN II, Inc., 2008 WL 879746 (D. Nev. Mar. 2006), 10 
28, 2008), 92 In re: Electric Machinery Enterprises, Inc., 416 B.R.
Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc. v. Morgan Stanley & 801, 873 (M.D. Fla. 2009), 77 
Co., Inc., 2005 WL 674885, (Fla. Cir. Ct., 2005), 70 Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996), 54, 56, , 
Collins v. Skinner, 576 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 2d DCA 132, 133, 136
1991), 51, 52 Empire World Towers, LLC v. Cdr Créances, 89 So.
Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Kelley, 903 So. 2d 240, 3d 1034 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012), 24
241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), 59  Evangelos v. Dachiel, 553 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d
Connell v. Guardianship of Connell, 476 So. 2d 1381 DCA 1989), 2 
(Fla. 1st DCA 1985), 59
Coopersmith v. Perrine, 91 So. 3d 246 (Fla. 4th DCA
2012), 54, 56, 129, 130  F 
Cordis Corp. v. O’Shea, 988 So. 2d 1163, 1165 (Fla. F.M. v. Old Cutler Presbyterian Church, Inc., 595 So.
4th DCA 2008), 37  2d 201, 202 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), 58 
Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998), 18,  Faddis v. City of Homestead, 121 So. 3d 1134 (Fla.
29, 30 3d DCA 2013), 24
Cross v. Pumpco, Inc., 910 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA Federal Express Corp. v. Cantway, 778 So. 2d 1052,
2005), 28  1053 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), 37
Crowley v. Lamming, 66 So. 3d 355 (Fla. 2d DCA Federal Insurance Co. v. Allister Manufacturing Co.,
2011), 54, 129, 130 622 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), 3
Cruz-Govin v. Torres, 29 So. 3d 393, 396 (Fla. 3d Ferron v. Search Cactus, LLC, 2008 WL 1902499
DCA 2010), 60, 61  (S.D. Ohio Apr. 28, 2008), 92 
CSX Transp., Inc. v. Carpenter, 725 So. 2d 434, Figgie International, Inc. v. Alderman, 698 So. 2d 563
435 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), 33  (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), 16 
First & Mid-South Advisorv Co. v. Alexander/Davis
D  Properties. Inc., 400 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 4th DCA
1981), 4 
Da Silva Moore v. Publicis Groupe, 2012 WL 607412 First Call Ventures, LLC v. Nationwide Relocation
(S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2012), 75  Servs., 127 So. 3d 691 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), 98 
First Healthcare Corp. v. Hamilton, 740 So. 2d 1189,
1193 n. 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), 8

139
Fisher v. Prof’l. Adver. Dirs. Co., Inc., 955 So. 2d 78 Graham v. Dacheikh, 991 So. 2d 932 (Fla. 2d DCA
(Fla. 4th DCA 2007), 11, 12 2008), 129
Fla. Convalescent Ctrs. V. Somberg, 840 So 2d 998 Grainger v. Fuller, 72 So. 462, 463 (Fla. 1916), 60
(Fla. 2003), 8  Gramman v. Stachkunas, 750 So. 2d 688 (Fla. 5th
Fla. Bar v. Black, 121 So. 3d 1038 (Fla. 2013), 90  DCA 1999), 55
Fla. Nat’l Org. for Women v. State, 832 So. 2d 911, Granados v. Zehr, 979 So. 2d 1155 (Fla. 5th DCA
914 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002), 12 2008), 18, 30
Florida Marine Enterprises v. Bailey, 632 So. 2d 649 Grand Union Co., v. Patrick, 247 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 3d
(Fla. 4th DCA 1994), 6  DCA 1971), 37
Ford Motor Co. v. Garrison, 415 So. 2d 843 (Fla. 1st Grau v. Branham, 626 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 4th DCA
DCA 1982), 4  1993), 6
In re: Ford Motor Co., 345 F. 3d 1315, 1316 (11th Cir. Gray v. Sunburst Sanitation Corp., 932 So. 2d 439
2003), 92  (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), 27 
Freedom Newspapers, Inc., v. Egly, 507 So. 2d 1180, Greenleaf v. Amerada Hess Corp., 626 So 2d 263,
1184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987), 34 264 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), 8
Freeman v. Latherow, 722 So. 2d 885 (Fla. 2d DCA Griefer v. DiPietro, 708 So. 2d 666, 672 (Fla. 4th DCA
1998), 51  1998), 6 
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923),
124 
H 
G  Hagopian v. Publix Supermarkets. Inc., 788 So. 2d
1088, 1091 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), 13 
Garbacik v. Wal-Mart Transp., LLC, 932 So. 2d 500, Hair v. Morton, 36 So. 3d 766 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010), 25 
503-504 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), 59, 60  Ham v. Dunmire, 891 So. 2d 492, (Fla. 2004), 11, 12, 
Garcia v. Emerson Electric Co., 677 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 80 
3d DCA 1996), 5  Haney v. Mizell Memorial Hosp., 744 F.2d 1467, 1476
Gautreaux v. Maya, 112 So. 3d 146, 149 (Fla. 5th (11th Cir. 1984), 58 
DCA 2013), 18, 29 Hankerson v. Wiley,154 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA
Gayer v. Fine Line Constr. & Elec., Inc., 970 So. 2d 2015), 38
424, 426 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007), 76, 77 Hanono v. Murphy, 732 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 3d DCA
Gehrmann v. City of Orlando, 962 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 1998), 26 
5th DCA 2007), 30  Haskell Co. v. Ga. Pac. Corp., 684 So. 2d 297 (Fla.
Gen. Caulking Coating Co., Inc. v. J.D. 5th DCA 1996), 44 
Waterproofing, Inc., 958 So. 2d 507, 508 (Fla. 3d Hastings v. Rigsbee, 875 So. 2d 772, (Fla. 2d DCA
DCA 2007), 35, 36  2004), 47
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 118 S. Haverfield Corp. v. Franzen, 694 So. 2d 162 (Fla. 3d
Ct. 512, 139 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1997), 123  DCA 1997), 9
Gibson v. Gibson, 456 So. 2d 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA Hedenburg v. Aramark American Food Services, 2007
1984), 51, 52 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3443 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 17, 2007),
Gilbert v. Eckerd Corp. of Fla, Inc., 34 So. 3d 773 92
(Fla. 3d DCA 2010), 18, 25 Helmick v. McKinnon, 657 So. 2d 1279, 1280 (Fla. 5th
Goeddel v. Davis, M.D., 993 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 5th DCA DCA 1995), 59
2008) 48  Henry v. Quicken Loans, Inc., 2008 WL 474127 (E.D.
Goicochea v. Lopez, 140 So. 3d 1102 (Fla. 3d DCA Mich. Feb. 15, 2008), 92 
2014), 47  Herman v. Intracoastal Cardiology Ctr., 121 So. 3d
Golden Yachts, Inc. v. Hall, 920 So. 2d 777, 781 (Fla. 583 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), 27
4th DCA 2006), 14, 80 Hernandez v. Pino, 482 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 3d DCA
Goldstein v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Co., 118 1986), 17 
So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960), 4  Hoffman v. Hoffman, 718 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 4th DCA
Gonzalez v. Largen, 790 So. 2d 497, 500 (Fla. 5th 1998), 2 
DCA 2001), 7  Holland v. Barfield, 35 So. 3d 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Cooey, 359 So. 2d 6293; 35 Fla. L. Weekly D 1018 (Fla. 5th DCA
1200, 1202 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978), 36 May 7, 2010), 70 
Gosman v. Luzinski, 937 So. 2d 293 (Fla. 4th DCA In re: Honza, 2007 WL 4591917 (Tex. App. Dec. 28,
2006), 116, 117  2007), 92 
Gouveia v. F. Leigh Phillips, M.D., 823 So. 2d 215, Howard v. Risch, 959 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007),
222 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), 6  22
Grabel v. Roura, 4D15-194, (Fla 4th DCA 2015), 137  Hutchinson v. Plantation Bay Apartments, LLC, 931
Grabel v. Sterrett, 163 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA So. 2d 957 (Fla.1st DCA 2006), 21
2015), 127, 136

140
 I  Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Lease America, Inc.,
735 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), 40
Ibarra v. Izaguirre, 985 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 3d DCA Lightbourne v. McCollum, 969 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2007),
2008), 25 119 
Insurance Company of North America v. Noya, 398 Littelfield v. J. Pat Torrence, 778 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 2d
So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981), 40  DCA 2001), 49
Int’l House of Pancakes (IHOP) v. Robinson, 8 So. 3d LoBue v. Travelers lnsurance Company, 388 So. 2d
1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) 32 1349, 1351 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), 6 
International Tel. & Tel. Corp v. United Tel. Co. of Long v. Swofford, 805 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA
Florida, 60 F.R.D. 177 (M.D. Fla. 1973), 115 2001), 26 
Lovell Farms, Inc. v. Levy, 644 So. 2d 103, 105 (Fla.
3d DCA 1994), 35
J  Lunceford v. Florida Central Railroad Co., Inc., 728
Jacob v. Henderson 840 So. 2d 1167 (Fla 2d DCA So. 2d 1239 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), 53 
2003), 23 Lytal, Reiter, Smith, Ivey & Fronrath, L.L.P. v. Malay,
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-12 (1996), 58 133 So. 3d 1178 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), 129, 135
Jean v. Theodorsen, 736 So. 2d 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA
1999), 6  M 
Jesse v. Commercial Diving Acad., 963 So. 2d 308
(Fla. 1st DCA 2007), 20 Marshalls of Ma, Inc. v. Minsal, 932 So. 2d 444 (Fla.
Johnson v. Swerdzewski, 935 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 1st App. 3d Dist. 2006), 32 
DCA 2006), 21  Martino v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 908 So. 2d 342
Johnson v. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Inc., 2008 (2005), 13, 14, 80 
WL 2142219 (D. Nev. May 16, 2008), 92 Matlock v. Day, 907 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005),
Joseph S. Arrigo Motor Co.. Inc. v. Lasserre, 678 So. 117 
2d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), 9 McClennan v. American Building Maintenance, 648
So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), 53
McCorkle v. Fast, 599 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 2d DCA
K  1992), 51, 52 
Katzman v. Ranjana Corp., 90 So. 3d 873 (Fla. 4th McDermott v. Miami-Dade County, 753 So. 2d 729
DCA 2002), 133 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), 44 
Katzman v. Rediron Fabrication, Inc., 76 So. 3d 1060 McGarrah v. Bayfront Medical Center, 889 So. 2d 923
(Fla. 4th DCA 2012), 128, 133, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), 53 
Kaye v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co.,, 985 So. 2d McKenney v. Airport Rent-A-Car, Inc., 686 So. 2d 771
675 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), 6  (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), 48
Keller Industries v. Volk, 657 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 4th McKnight v. Evancheck, 907 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 4th
DCA 1995), 5, 6 DCA 2005), 28 
King v. Taylor, 3 So. 3d 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009), 22  Medina v. Florida East Coast Ry., L.L.C., 921 So. 2d
Kozel v. Ostendorf, 629 So. 2d 817 (Fla. 1993), 10, 11,  767 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), 25 
12  Medina v. Florida East Coast Rwy., 866 So. 2d 89
Kubel v. San Marco Floor & Wall, Inc., 967 So. 2d (Fla. 3d DCA 2004), 10
1063 (Fla 2d DCA 2007), 22  Medrano v. BEC Const. Corp., 588 So. 2d 1056 (Fla.
Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 3d DCA 1991), 53
119 S. Ct. 1167, 143 L. Ed. 2d 238 (1999), 123 Menke v. Broward County School Board, 916 So. 2d 8
(4th DCA 2005), 70, 91, 92, 93 
Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d at 946, 11 
L  Metric Eng’g., Inc v.Small, 861 So. 2d 1248, 1250
(Fla. 1st DCA 2003), 33
Laschke v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 872 So. 2d
Metro. Opera Ass’n Inc. v. Local 100, Hotel
344 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004), 23 
Employees and Restaurant Employees Int’l Union,
Laurore v. Miami Auto. Retail,Inc.,16 So. 3d 862 (Fla.
212 F.R.D. 178, 218-219 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), 80
3d DCA 2009), 25 
Metropolitan Dade County v. Martinsen, 736 So. 2d
Leinhart v. Jurkovich, 882 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 4th DCA
794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), 26 
2004), 48 
Midtown Enterprises. Inc. v. Local Contractors Inc.,
Lent v. Baur Miller & Webner. P.A., 710 So. 2d 156
785 So. 2d 578 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), 7 
(Fla. 3d DCA 1998), 16 
Millard Mall Servs. v. Bolda, 155 So. 3d 1272 (Fla. 4th
Lerner v. Halegua, 154 So. 3d 445 (Fla. 3d DCA
DCA 2015), 32 
2014), 23 
Miller v. Harris, 2 So. 3d 1070, 1073 (Fla. 2nd DCA
Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Bennett, 883 So. 2d 373,
2009), 56
374 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), 32

141
Miller v. Nelms, 966 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), Papadopoulos v. Cruise Ventures, 974 So. 2d 418
22 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007), 25 
Morgan v. Campbell, 816 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 2d DCA Parrish v. City of Orlando, 53 So. 3d 1199, 1203 (Fla.
2002), 23  5th DCA 2011), 60 
Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A. v. Pope, 798 So. 2d 1 Partner-Brown v. Bornstein, D.P.M., 734 So. 2d 555,
(Fla. DCA 2001), 136 556 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999), 58, 59
Mullins v. Tompkins, 15 So. 3d 798 (Fla. 1st DCA Pena v. Citizens Prop. Ins. Co., 88 So. 3d 965 (Fla.
2009), 120  2d DCA 2012), 21
Myrick v. Direct General Inc. Co., 932 So. 2d 392 Perrine v. Henderson, 85 So. 3d 1210 (Fla. 5th DCA
(Fla. 2d DCA 2006), 23  2012), 29
Peskoff v. Faber, 2008 WL 2649506 (D.D.C. July 7,
2008), 92
N  Piunno v. R. F. Concrete Const., Inc., 904 So. 2d 658
N. Broward Hosp. Dist. v. Button, 592 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), 28 
(Fla. 4th DCA 1992), 33  Powerline Components, Inc. v. Mil-Spec Components,
National Day Laborer Organizing Network et al. v. Inc., 720 So. 2d 546, 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998), 10 
United States Immigration and Customs Prince v. Mallari, 36 So. 3d 128 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010),
Enforcement Agency, et al., 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 53 
97863 (SDNY, July 13, 2012), 84  Progressive v. Scoma, 975 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA
Nelson v. Womble, 657 So. 2d 1221, 1222 (Fla. 5th 2007), 120 
DCA 1995), 58  Pronman v. Styles, 163 So. 3d 535 (Fla. 4th DCA
Nevin v. Palm Beach County School Board, 958 So. 2015), 8 
2d 1003 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), 117 Proskauer Rose v. Boca Airport, Inc., 987 So. 2d 116
New Hampshire Ins. Co. v. Royal Ins. Co., 559 So. 2d (Fla. 4th DCA 2008), 121
102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), 15  Public Health Trust of Dade County v. Valcin, 507
Nordyne, Inc. v. Florida Mobile Home Supply, Inc., So. 2d 596 (Fla. 1987), 3, 14 
625 So. 2d 1283 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993), 2 
Northup v. Howard W. Acken, M.D., 865 So. 2d 1267
(Fla. 2004), 34
R 
Nova Southeastern University, Inc. v. Jacobson, 25
So. 3d 82 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), 119  Rahman Momenah v. Ammache, 616 So. 2d 121 (Fla.
Nucci v. Target Corp., 162 So. 3d 146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2d DCA 1993), 39, 40
2015), 68, 70, 91, 99 Ramey v. Haverty Furniture Cos., 993 So. 2d 1014,
1018 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008), 22
Rankin v. Rankin, 284 So. 2d 487 (Fla. 3d DCA
O  1973), 4
O’Brien v. O’Brien, 899 So. 2d 1133, 1137–38 (Fla. Reynolds v. State, 963 So. 2d 908 (Fla. 2d DCA
5th DCA 2005), 90 2007), 121 
Office Depot v. Miller, 584 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 4th Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Cammarata, 688 F.
DCA 1991), 6  Supp. 2d 598, 613 (S.D. Tex. 2010), 78
Olges v. Dougherty, 856 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 1st DCA Rios v. Moore, 902 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005),
2003), 47  26 
Olson v. Blasco, 676 So. 2d 481, 482 (Fla. 4th DCA Rocca v. Rones, 125 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013),
1996), 59  131 
Orbit One Communications, Inc. v. Ronsen, 271 Rocka Fuerta Constr., Inc. v. Southwick, Inc., 103 So.
F.R.D. 429; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123633 (S.D. 3d 1022 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), 29 
N.Y. 2010), 78 Root v. Balfour Beatty Const., LLC, 132 So. 3d
Osmulski v. Oldsmar Fine Wine, Inc., 93 So. 3d 389 867,869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014), 68, 70, 100 
(Fla. 2d DCA 2012), 17, 70, 74, 76, 77 Rose v. Clinton, 575 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991),
Oswald v. Diamond, 576 So. 2d 909, 910 (Fla. 1st 10 
DCA 1991), 60  Royal & Sunalliance v. Lauderdale Marine Center,
877 So. 2d 843, 845 (4th DCA 2004), 77
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Cox, 974 So. 2d
P  462, 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008), 47 
Pack v. Geico, 119 So. 3d 1284 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), Ruiz v. City of Orlando, 859 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 5th DCA
135 2003), 30
Palank v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 657 So. 2d 48 Russenberger v. Russenberger, 639 So. 2d 963 (Fla.
(Fla. 4th DCA 1995), 51  1994), 47 
Palm Beach County Sch. Bd. v. Morrison, 621 So. 2d
464, 469 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), 59 

142
 S  Sullivan v. Dry Lake Dairy, Inc., 898 So. 2d 174 (Fla.
4th DCA 2005), 13 
S. Bell Tel. & Tel Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d 1377, Summit Chase Condominium Ass’n Inc. v. Protean
1385 (Fla. 1994), 33 Investors. Inc., 421 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 3d DCA
1982), 4
Saenz v. Patco Trans. Inc., 969 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 5th
Summitbridge Nat’l Invs., v. 1221 Palm Harbor,
DCA 2007), 30 
L.L.C., 67 So. 3d 448, 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), 35 
Savino v. Florida Drive In Theatre Management, Inc.,
Sunex Intern Inc. v. Colson, 964 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 4th
697 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), 28
DCA 2007), 27 
Schagrin v. Nacht, 683 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA
Syken v. Elkins, 644 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994),
1996), 47
125, 132
Scheff v. Mayo, 645 So. 2d 181, 182 (Fla. 3d DCA
Sykes v. St. Andrews Sch., 619 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th
1994), 58 
DCA 1993), 58, 59
Scientific Games, Inc. v. Dittler Bros., Inc., 586 So. 2d
1128, 1131 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), 35
Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara, 813 So. 2d 250, 251- T 
52 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), 37 
Segarra v. Segarra, 932 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 3d DCA Tampa Electric Co. v. Bazemore, 96 So. 297, 302
2006), 58, 59  (Fla. 1923), 61 
Sky Dev., Inc. v. Vistaview Dev., Inc., 41 So. 3d 918 The Florida Bar v. Ratiner, 46 So. 3d 35 (Fla. 2010),
(Fla. 3d DCA 2010), 24  42 
Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972), The Pension Committee of the University of Montreal
37 Pension Plan, et al. v. Banc of America Securities,
Smith v. Eldred, 96 So. 3d 1102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012), et al., 2010 WL 184312, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
56, 125, 134  4546 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 15, 2010), 81, 83
Smith v. University Medical Center, Inc., 559 So. 2d TIG Ins. Corp. of America v. Johnson, 799 So. 2d 339
393 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), 3  (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), 116
Sonson v. Hearn, 17 So. 3d 745 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), Time Warner, Inc. v. Gadinsky, 639 So. 2d 176 (Fla.
5 3d DCA 1994), 32 
Southern Bell Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Deason, 632 So. 2d Toucet v. Big Bend Moving & Storage, 581 So. 2d
1377 (Fla. 1994), 37, 115 952 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), 50, 51, 52, 53 
Sponco Manufacturinq, Inc. v. Alcover, 656 So. 2d Townsend v. Conshor, 832 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 2d DCA
629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), 15 2002), 14
St. Petersburg Sheraton Corp. v. Stuart, 242 So. 2d Tramel v. Bass, 672 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), 3, 
185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970), 4 15 
Stables and CAN Ins. Co. v. Rivers, 559 So. 2d 440 Truesdale v. Landau, 573 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 5th DCA
(Fla. 1st DCA 1990), 39  1991), 52
Stakely v. Allstate Ins. Co., 547 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 2d Tsutras v. Duhe, 685 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997),
DCA 1989), 51  48 
State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company v. Tubero v. Ellis, 472 So. 2d 548, 550 (Fla. 4th DCA
Shepard, 644 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), 50 1985), 10 
State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Tranchese,
49 So. 3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010), 37 U 
Steele v. Chapnick, 552 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 4th DCA
1989), 2 
Steinger v. Geico, 103 So. 3d 200 (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. U.S. Security Ins. Co. v. Cimino, 754 So. 2d 697, 701
21, 2012), 128, 134, 135  (Fla. 2000), 54
Stephens v. State of Florida, 932 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 1st United Services Automobile Association v. Strasser,
DCA 2006), 51 492 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), 2 
Sterle v. Elizabeth Arden, Inc., 2008 WL 961216 (D. Univ. of Fla. Bd. of Trs. v. Stone, 92 So. 3d 264, 272
st
Conn. Apr. 9, 2008), 92  (Fla. 1 DCA 2012), 123
Stern v. Stein, 694 So. 2d 851 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), 9  USAA Casualty Insurance Co. v. Callery, 66 So. 3d
Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 783 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th 315 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), 129
DCA 2001), 70 
Strasser v. Yalamanchi, 669 So. 2d 1142 (Fla. 4th V 
DCA 1996), 70 
Suarez v. Benihana Nat'l of Fla. Corp., 88 So. 3d 349 Vega v. CSCS International. N.V., 795 So. 2d 164,
(Fla. 3d DCA 2012), 24  167 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), 14
Sukonik v. Wallack, No. 14-2197 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015), Victor Stanley, Inc. v. Creative Pipe, Inc., 269 F.R.D.
10  497, 523 (D. Md. Sep. 9, 2010), 78

143
Villasenor v. Martinez, 991 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA X          
2008), 29
Xpel Technologies Corp. v. Am. Filter Film Distribs;
2008 WL 744837 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2008), 92
W 
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Weeks, 696 So. 2d 855 (Fla.
2d DCA 1997), 33
Y
Yoho v. Lindsley, 248 So. 2d 187, 192 (Fla. 4th DCA
Wapnick v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
1971), 60 
Co., 54 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), 49
Young v. Curgil, 358 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978),
Weinstock v. Groth, 659 So. 2d 713, 715 (Fla. 5th
26 
DCA 1995), 60 
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Reeves, 92 So. 3d 249
(Fla. 1st DCA 2012), 20  Z 
Westco, Inc. v. Scott Lewis’ Gardening & Trimming,
26 So. 3d 620, 622 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009), 35 Zaccaria v. Russell, 700 So. 2d 187 (Fla. 4th DCA
Wilkins v. Palumbo, 617 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997), 10 
1993), 50, 51, 52 Zanathy v. Beach Harbor Club Assoc., 343 So. 2d
William A. Gross Construction Associates, Inc. v. 625 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977), 9 
American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co., Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 216 F.R.D. 280
256 F.R.D. 134, 136 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), 75 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), 79  
Winn-Dixie Stores v. Nakutis, 435 So. 2d 307 (Fla. 5th Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 217 F.R.D. 309
DCA 1983), 37  (S.D.N.Y. 2003), 68
Worley v. Central Florida YMCA, 163 So. 3d 1240 Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212
(Fla. 5th DCA 2015), 129, 136 (S.D.N.Y. 2003), 79, 81
Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 229 F.R.D. 422
(S.D.N.Y. 2004), 79, 80, 83 

  

144
 Fed. R. Civ. P. 

16, 66, 102
16(b), 71, 106 
16(c), 106
26, 66, 105
26(a), 102, 106 
26(a)(1), 106 
26(a)(1)(B) 71
26(b), 107, 112 
26(b)(1), 106 
26(b)(2)(B), 71, 91 
26(b)(2)(C), 105, 111 
26(b)(5), 71 
26(b)(5)(B), 91, 112 
26(c), 106 
26(d)(2), 108 
26(e)(1), 102 
26(f), 71, 102, 104, 106, 108 
29, 108 
30, 105
33, 66, 71, 107
34, 63, 66, 71, 107
34(b)(2), 91
35, 48
37, 66, 109
37(e), 81, 83, 113 
37(f), 71
45, 66, 71, 108, 109, 111 

Fed. R. Evid.
502, 91, 111, 103, 106 
 
 
 
Fla. R. Civ. P.
1.010, 70 
1.080, 110
1.200, 70, 102, 106, 113
1.200(a)(5)-(7), 70
1.201, 70, 104, 106, 113
1.201(a)(2)(A)-(H), 102
1.201(b), 104 
1.201(b)(1)(J), 70, 104
1.280, 33,70,105, 113, 132, 133
1.280(b), 70, 71
1.280(b)(1), 100, 115, 124
1.280(b)(3), 32, 33, 63, 67
1.280(b)(4), 128, 134
1.280(b)(4)(A), 54, 135 

145
1.280(b)(4)(A)(iii), 132
1.280(b)(5), 54, 116, 135, 136 
1.280(b)(5)(A), 124, 126, 127, 128, 134 
1.280(b)(5)(A)(iii), 128
1.280(b)(5)(C), 125
1.280(c), 39 
1.280(d), 70, 75, 114 
1.280(d)(1), 75
1.280(d)(2), 98, 110
1.280(d)(2)(ii), 67, 76 
1.280(g), 65
1.285, 65, 68, 69, 91, 111,117,118
1.285(a), 69, 118 
1.285(b), 69, 118 
1.285(c), 69, 118 
1.285(c)(4), 118
1.285(d), 69, 118 
1.310, 1
1.310(b)(6), 1
1.310(c), 43, 44, 45
1.310(d), 44, 45 
1.310(f)(3), 65
1.320, 1 
1.320(a), 1 
1.340, 1, 41, 107, 113
1.340(c), 97 
1.340(e), 65
1.350, 1, 33, 41, 97, 107, 113,
1.350(b), 95, 96 
1.350(d), 65 
1.351, 41
1.360, 41, 47, 48, 49, 50, 53, 54
1.360(a), 1 
1.360(a)(1)(B), 8 
1.360(a)(2), 8 
1.360(a)(3), 50 
1.360(b), 130
1.380, 1, 5, 41, 84, 108, 109, 113
1.380(a), 41 
1.380(a)(2), 3 
1.380(a)(2)(4), 3
1.380(a)(3), 4 
1.380(a)(4), 2, 39
1.380(b), 2 
1.380(b)(2), 8, 9
1.380(b)(2)(A)-(E), 2 
1.380(e), 83 
1.390, 124 
1.410, 97, 109, 114
1.410(c), 98 

Fla. R. Jud. Admin.

2.420, 64, 65
2.425, 65 

146
 
Fla. R. Prof. Conduct
3-4.3, 42
3-4.4, 42
4-1.1, 63
4-1.6, 64 
4-3.4, 42 
4-3.5, 42 
4-4.4, 42, 90 
4-4.4(b), 69, 111 
4-8, 42 
 
 
 

Florida Statues
§ 57.105, 7 
§ 57.105(2), 7
§ 57.105(6), 7 
§ 90.501-510, 69
§ 90.502, 115 
§ 90.503, 57, 58, 59
§ 90.503(1)(a), 57 
§ 90.503(1)(a)1, 57 
§ 90.503(1)(a)2, 57 
§ 90.503(1)(a)5, 57 
§ 90.503(2), 57, 61 
§ 90.503(4)(b), 62 
§ 90.503(4)(c), 57, 58
§ 90.506, 36
§ 90.507, 59 
§ 90.608(2)(2009), 135 
§ 90.608(2)(2015), 125 
§ 90.702, 122, 123
§ 90.703, 122 
§ 90.704, 122 
§ 394.4615, 58 
§ 397.053, 61 
§ 397.053(2), 61 
§ 397.501, 61  
§ 397.501(7)(a)5, 62 
§ 440.13(2)(b), 54 
§ 456.057(a), 56
§ 456.057(a)(3), 130 
§ 456.057(7)(a)(3), 129 
§ 627.736(7), 54 
§ 688.002(4), 35 
§ 766.102(5), 123 
§ 934.03, 90 

147
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, Local Rules

26.1(g)(3)(B)(ii), 116 
 
 
 
Ethics Opinions
The Philadelphia Bar Assoc. Professional Guidance Committee, Op. 2009-2 (Mar. 2009), 90 
 
 
 
Books
Losey, R. Adventures in Electronic Discovery, Chapter Child’s Game of “Go Fish” is a Poor Model for e-Discovery
Search, (West Thomson Reuters, 2011), 75 
 
Artigliere & Hamilton, LexisNexis® Practice Guide: Florida E-Discovery and Evidence, LexisNexis/Matthew Bender
(2012), 78, 85 
 
 
 
Law Journals
Thomas Allman, Deterring E-Discovery Misconduct By Counsel Sanctions: The Unintended Consequences of
Qualcomm v. Broadcom, 118 Yale L.J. Pocket Part 161 (2009), 80

Journals
10 Sedona Conf. J. 331 (2009 Supp.), 71

148