Fields v. Cannady

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fields v. Cannady

456 So. 2d 1208, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1895, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14811

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 6, 1984

DocketNo. 84-765

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 456 So. 2d 1208 (Fields v. Cannady) 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

Fields v. Cannady, 456 So. 2d 1208, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1895, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14811 (Fla. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

COWART, Judge.

Petitioners seek review by certiorari¹ of an interlocutory order compelling production of seven exhibits claimed by the petitioners to be privileged. The exhibits, as described, appear to be materials privileged under the work product doctrine or at least prepared by or for petitioners or their representatives in anticipation of litigation or for trial. The seven exhibits were examined by Clayton Morrison, an expert witness employed by the petitioners. However, it does not affirmatively appear from a reading of Morrison’s deposition that he used information from any of these exhibits to form his opinion testimony. Therefore, the writ is granted and the order compelling production is quashed.

SHARP, J., concurs. FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., dissents without opinion.

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

COWART, Judge.

Petitioners seek review by certiorari¹ of an interlocutory order compelling production of seven exhibits claimed by the petitioners to be privileged. The exhibits, as described, appear to be materials privileged under the work product doctrine or at least prepared by or for petitioners or their representatives in anticipation of litigation or for trial. The seven exhibits were examined by Clayton Morrison, an expert witness employed by the petitioners. However, it does not affirmatively appear from a reading of Morrison’s deposition that he used information from any of these exhibits to form his opinion testimony. Therefore, the writ is granted and the order compelling production is quashed.

SHARP, J., concurs. FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., dissents without opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

456 So. 2d 1208, 9 Fla. L. Weekly 1895, 1984 Fla. App. LEXIS 14811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fields-v-cannady-fladistctapp-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack