Orange Park Christian Academy v. Russell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Orange Park Christian Academy v. Russell

899 So. 2d 1215, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5200, 2005 WL 856056

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 15, 2005

DocketNo. 1D04-4490

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 899 So. 2d 1215 (Orange Park Christian Academy v. Russell) 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

Orange Park Christian Academy v. Russell, 899 So. 2d 1215, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5200, 2005 WL 856056 (Fla. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Orange Park Assembly of God, doing business as Orange Park Christian Academy, seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order compelling disclosure of a report produced by a teacher at the school and notes and memoranda prepared by the school’s principal regarding an incident during which the minor daughter of respondent, Susan Russell, was struck by a motor vehicle when petitioner was allegedly responsible for supervising her. Petitioner argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering disclosure because the documents constitute work product. We agree.

The documents created in anticipation of litigation are privileged pursuant to the work product doctrine because it was foreseeable that litigation might ensue from the incident. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Ballasso, 789 So.2d 519, 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); McRae’s, Inc. v. Moreland, 765 So.2d 196, 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Additionally, both the teacher and principal gave deposition testimony indicating that each had contemplated litigation at the time the documents were prepared. As such, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting the motion to compel where there was no showing that respondent needs the documents and could not obtain substantially the same information without undue hardship. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(3). [1216]*1216Therefore, we GRANT the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the trial court’s order, and REMAND the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN, PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Orange Park Assembly of God, doing business as Orange Park Christian Academy, seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order compelling disclosure of a report produced by a teacher at the school and notes and memoranda prepared by the school’s principal regarding an incident during which the minor daughter of respondent, Susan Russell, was struck by a motor vehicle when petitioner was allegedly responsible for supervising her. Petitioner argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering disclosure because the documents constitute work product. We agree.

The documents created in anticipation of litigation are privileged pursuant to the work product doctrine because it was foreseeable that litigation might ensue from the incident. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Ballasso, 789 So.2d 519, 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001); McRae’s, Inc. v. Moreland, 765 So.2d 196, 197 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000). Additionally, both the teacher and principal gave deposition testimony indicating that each had contemplated litigation at the time the documents were prepared. As such, the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in granting the motion to compel where there was no showing that respondent needs the documents and could not obtain substantially the same information without undue hardship. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(3). [1216]*1216Therefore, we GRANT the petition for writ of certiorari, quash the trial court’s order, and REMAND the cause for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

ERVIN, PADOVANO and LEWIS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

899 So. 2d 1215, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 5200, 2005 WL 856056, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orange-park-christian-academy-v-russell-fladistctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack