Gelco Corp. v. Escambia County

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Gelco Corp. v. Escambia County

649 So. 2d 333, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 569, 1995 WL 33536

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 1995

DocketNo. 94-3167

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 649 So. 2d 333 (Gelco Corp. v. Escambia County) 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

Gelco Corp. v. Escambia County, 649 So. 2d 333, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 569, 1995 WL 33536 (Fla. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

ERVIN, Judge.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and that portion of the trial court’s order compelling production of the diagram/report prepared by petitioner Flood is quashed, because the documents are protected work product and there was no finding that respondent Escambia County demonstrated that it needed the materials for preparation of its case and was unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. See Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(3); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 446 So.2d 100 (Fla.1984); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 271 So.2d 146 (Fla.1972). And see Alachua Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Scott, 481 So.2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Hospital Corp. of Am. v. Dixon, 330 So.2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 341 So.2d 291 (Fla.1976).

The petition is denied, however, as to that portion of the order requiring petitioner Flood to submit to a second deposition, because we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision and, hence, no departure from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur.

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

ERVIN, Judge.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, and that portion of the trial court’s order compelling production of the diagram/report prepared by petitioner Flood is quashed, because the documents are protected work product and there was no finding that respondent Escambia County demonstrated that it needed the materials for preparation of its case and was unable, without undue hardship, to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. See Fla. R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(3); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, 435 So.2d 307 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983), review denied, 446 So.2d 100 (Fla.1984); Sligar v. Tucker, 267 So.2d 54 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 271 So.2d 146 (Fla.1972). And see Alachua Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Scott, 481 So.2d 968 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Hospital Corp. of Am. v. Dixon, 330 So.2d 737 (Fla. 1st DCA), cert. denied, 341 So.2d 291 (Fla.1976).

The petition is denied, however, as to that portion of the order requiring petitioner Flood to submit to a second deposition, because we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision and, hence, no departure from the essential requirements of law.

The petition is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

MINER and WOLF, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

649 So. 2d 333, 1995 Fla. App. LEXIS 569, 1995 WL 33536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gelco-corp-v-escambia-county-fladistctapp-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack