Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Barnes

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Barnes

689 So. 2d 1200, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2122, 1997 WL 106987

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 12, 1997

DocketNo. 96-2353

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 689 So. 2d 1200 (Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Barnes) 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

Asplundh Tree Expert Co. v. Barnes, 689 So. 2d 1200, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2122, 1997 WL 106987 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Asplundh Tree Expert Co., a defendant in the court below, seeks certiorari review of an order compelling one of its attorneys to answer certain questions pertaining to a wood chipper which injured the plaintiff. The substantive areas of inquiry are protected by the attorney client privilege. § 90.502(2), Fla. Stat. (1995); United Servs. Auto Ass’n v. Crews, 614 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The communications between Asplundh’s attorney and the president of the codefendant, the company that sold the wood chipper, are also privileged as part of the common interests exception to the doctrine of waiver of privilege. See Rodan v. Doyle, 614 So.2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Visual Scene, Inc. v. Pilkington Brothers, PLC., 508 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The letter from the codefendant to the customer referencing the advice of “our attorney’s” (sic) did not amount to a waiver of the confidentiality of any communications with Asplundh’s attorney that may have prompted her to give advice. See Prieto v. Union American Ins. Co., 673 So.2d 521, 522-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). The only record evidence is that the eodefendant relied on the advice of an attorney other than Asplundh’s to make the decision mentioned in the letter. Because the privilege applies to the proposed [1201]*1201substantive questions, the background questions are not discoverable. Having found that the privilege applies, we do not reach the issue of the procedural deficiencies in the order compelling the out-of-state attorney to give testimony.

The petition for certiorari is granted and the order compelling the deposition of attorney Hamm is quashed.

GUNTHER, C.J., and STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner Asplundh Tree Expert Co., a defendant in the court below, seeks certiorari review of an order compelling one of its attorneys to answer certain questions pertaining to a wood chipper which injured the plaintiff. The substantive areas of inquiry are protected by the attorney client privilege. § 90.502(2), Fla. Stat. (1995); United Servs. Auto Ass’n v. Crews, 614 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). The communications between Asplundh’s attorney and the president of the codefendant, the company that sold the wood chipper, are also privileged as part of the common interests exception to the doctrine of waiver of privilege. See Rodan v. Doyle, 614 So.2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Visual Scene, Inc. v. Pilkington Brothers, PLC., 508 So.2d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). The letter from the codefendant to the customer referencing the advice of “our attorney’s” (sic) did not amount to a waiver of the confidentiality of any communications with Asplundh’s attorney that may have prompted her to give advice. See Prieto v. Union American Ins. Co., 673 So.2d 521, 522-23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996). The only record evidence is that the eodefendant relied on the advice of an attorney other than Asplundh’s to make the decision mentioned in the letter. Because the privilege applies to the proposed [1201]*1201substantive questions, the background questions are not discoverable. Having found that the privilege applies, we do not reach the issue of the procedural deficiencies in the order compelling the out-of-state attorney to give testimony.

The petition for certiorari is granted and the order compelling the deposition of attorney Hamm is quashed.

GUNTHER, C.J., and STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

689 So. 2d 1200, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 2122, 1997 WL 106987, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/asplundh-tree-expert-co-v-barnes-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack