Florida Power & Light Co. v. Guettler

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Guettler

589 So. 2d 985, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11505, 1991 WL 231870

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 13, 1991

DocketNo. 91-1769

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 589 So. 2d 985 (Florida Power & Light Co. v. Guettler) 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

Florida Power & Light Co. v. Guettler, 589 So. 2d 985, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11505, 1991 WL 231870 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We grant the petition for writ of certio-rari and quash the order of the trial court compelling discovery. See Waste Management Inc. of Florida v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 544 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Our ruling is without prejudice to further proceedings in the trial court to make particularized findings as to what information may be protected by the petitioner’s work product privilege, what information is not, and whether any protected information is subject to discovery under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(3). We reject respondent’s claim that petitioner waived any work product privilege as to the knowledge of its claims agent because the claims agent participated in responding to interrogatories.

ANSTEAD, POLEN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We grant the petition for writ of certio-rari and quash the order of the trial court compelling discovery. See Waste Management Inc. of Florida v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 544 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Our ruling is without prejudice to further proceedings in the trial court to make particularized findings as to what information may be protected by the petitioner’s work product privilege, what information is not, and whether any protected information is subject to discovery under Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(3). We reject respondent’s claim that petitioner waived any work product privilege as to the knowledge of its claims agent because the claims agent participated in responding to interrogatories.

ANSTEAD, POLEN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

589 So. 2d 985, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 11505, 1991 WL 231870, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/florida-power-light-co-v-guettler-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack