Albertsons, Inc. v. Howells

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Albertsons, Inc. v. Howells

518 So. 2d 291, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2401, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10572, 1987 WL 866

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 9, 1987

DocketNo. 87-1936

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 518 So. 2d 291 (Albertsons, Inc. v. Howells) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Albertsons, Inc. v. Howells, 518 So. 2d 291, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2401, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10572, 1987 WL 866 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Albertsons, the defendant in a slip-and-fall action has petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari to quash an order compelling the disclosure to the respondent of an internally-produced “incident report” prepared on the day of the accident for the store manager in accordance with the requirements of Albertsons’ claims representatives. Albertsons maintains that the report constitutes work product prepared in anticipation of litigation. Based upon Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), pet. for rev. den., 446 So.2d 100 (Fla.1984), we agree. Rule 1.280(b)(2) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure prescribes conditions which must be satisfied to achieve entitlement to a report of the kind sought by the respondent. The respondent did not allege circumstances overriding Albertsons right to confidentiality.

Petition granted.

RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Albertsons, the defendant in a slip-and-fall action has petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari to quash an order compelling the disclosure to the respondent of an internally-produced “incident report” prepared on the day of the accident for the store manager in accordance with the requirements of Albertsons’ claims representatives. Albertsons maintains that the report constitutes work product prepared in anticipation of litigation. Based upon Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), pet. for rev. den., 446 So.2d 100 (Fla.1984), we agree. Rule 1.280(b)(2) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure prescribes conditions which must be satisfied to achieve entitlement to a report of the kind sought by the respondent. The respondent did not allege circumstances overriding Albertsons right to confidentiality.

Petition granted.

RYDER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and FRANK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

518 So. 2d 291, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2401, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10572, 1987 WL 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/albertsons-inc-v-howells-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack