McNatt v. City of Orlando

District Court of Appeal of Florida

McNatt v. City of Orlando

526 So. 2d 1022, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1420, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2540, 1988 WL 61391

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 16, 1988

DocketNo. 88-536

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 526 So. 2d 1022 (McNatt v. City of Orlando) 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

McNatt v. City of Orlando, 526 So. 2d 1022, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1420, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 2540, 1988 WL 61391 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

DAUKSCH, Judge.

McNatt, a plaintiff and defendant in consolidated cases below, petitions for writ of certiorari to review an order granting the city of Orlando’s motion to compel production of witness statements.

Petitioner alleges the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering the production because the statements “invaded the work product privilege and/or attorney-client privilege.” We cannot issue our writ based upon a bald assertion of that kind. It must be somehow demonstrated in the record that the statement would constitute such a violation. Here there is no such showing either in the written objection or in a recorded hearing. There was a hearing, unrecorded.

Because petitioner has failed clearly to demonstrate a departure from the essential requirements of law we must deny the writ.

WRIT DENIED.

ORFINGER and COBB, JJ., concur.

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