ICI Explosives USA Inc. v. Douglas

District Court of Appeal of Florida

ICI Explosives USA Inc. v. Douglas

643 So. 2d 707, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9984, 1994 WL 568085

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 19, 1994

DocketNo. 94-1081

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 643 So. 2d 707 (ICI Explosives USA Inc. v. Douglas) 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

ICI Explosives USA Inc. v. Douglas, 643 So. 2d 707, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9984, 1994 WL 568085 (Fla. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We grant certiorari and quash the trial court’s order compelling discovery of information which is work product. Lifshutz v. Citizens and Southern National Bank of Florida, 626 So.2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

Petitioners are defendants in an accident case. Respondent plaintiffs, while deposing defendants’ employees who investigated the accident in anticipation of litigation, asked them questions regarding what witnesses told them and what their (the deponents’) contentions were as to how the accident occurred. The deponents were the safety director for the company who was assigned by the company’s legal counsel to investigate the accident, and the Florida operations manager of the company, who was assisting him.

These questions clearly sought work product. Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108 (Fla.1970). The order is therefore quashed insofar as it requires answers from these witnesses requiring them to set forth the contents. of the information they gathered, their evaluation of it, and their contentions based on it.

GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We grant certiorari and quash the trial court’s order compelling discovery of information which is work product. Lifshutz v. Citizens and Southern National Bank of Florida, 626 So.2d 252 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).

Petitioners are defendants in an accident case. Respondent plaintiffs, while deposing defendants’ employees who investigated the accident in anticipation of litigation, asked them questions regarding what witnesses told them and what their (the deponents’) contentions were as to how the accident occurred. The deponents were the safety director for the company who was assigned by the company’s legal counsel to investigate the accident, and the Florida operations manager of the company, who was assisting him.

These questions clearly sought work product. Surf Drugs, Inc. v. Vermette, 236 So.2d 108 (Fla.1970). The order is therefore quashed insofar as it requires answers from these witnesses requiring them to set forth the contents. of the information they gathered, their evaluation of it, and their contentions based on it.

GLICKSTEIN, GUNTHER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

643 So. 2d 707, 1994 Fla. App. LEXIS 9984, 1994 WL 568085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ici-explosives-usa-inc-v-douglas-fladistctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack