Kenleigh Associates v. Harris-Intertype Corp.

279 So. 2d 373, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 8003
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedJune 19, 1973
DocketNo. 73-181
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 279 So. 2d 373 (Kenleigh Associates v. Harris-Intertype Corp.) 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
Kenleigh Associates v. Harris-Intertype Corp., 279 So. 2d 373, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 8003 (Fla. Ct. App. 1973).

Opinion

PEARSON, Judge.

We are presented with a petition for writ of certiorari to review an order of the trial court which limited discovery sought by the plaintiff. The petition urges that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in holding that all internal corporate communications are privileged.1 Conversely, the respondents contend that the trial judge was correct because (a) the petitioner proceeded improperly in the trial court by resorting to a notice of taking deposition duces tecum in order to obtain documents which were not properly subject to discovery under Rule 1.350, RCP, 30 F.S.A., as amended effective January 1, 1973 (Fla., 265 So.2d 21); (b) the scope of the demand contained in the notice was so broad as to require a protective order; and, (c) the notice improperly directed individual defendants to produce corporate documents. The respondents have not been able to come forward with precedent holding that all intracorporate documents are privileged, and we have found no precedent.

The petition for writ of certiorari will be granted and the order quoted is quashed. This action shall be without prejudice to further proceedings before the trial judge to determine whether the alternative grounds for the protective order advanced by the respondents are applicable, and to the granting of such a protective order if the trial court finds said grounds applicable.

It is so ordered.

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

Related

Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. v. Pupillo
54 So. 3d 612 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Weeks
696 So. 2d 855 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
279 So. 2d 373, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 8003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kenleigh-associates-v-harris-intertype-corp-fladistctapp-1973.