Palm Beach Primary Care Associates, Inc. v. Mufti

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Palm Beach Primary Care Associates, Inc. v. Mufti

935 So. 2d 122, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 13309, 2006 WL 2265224

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 9, 2006

DocketNo. 4D06-1641

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 935 So. 2d 122 (Palm Beach Primary Care Associates, Inc. v. Mufti) 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

Palm Beach Primary Care Associates, Inc. v. Mufti, 935 So. 2d 122, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 13309, 2006 WL 2265224 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Palm Beach Primary Care Associates, Inc. (the former employer) seeks certiorari review of a non-final order which granted the respondent’s motion to compel and required the former employer to disclose allegedly confidential financial and patient data, treating its objections to production as “waived.” We grant the petition.

We agree that the former employer’s response to request for production, like its response to the interrogatories, was untimely. The response was ordered to be provided within ten days of the date of the order compelling it, not within ten days of the date of service of that order. Accordingly, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(e), which applies when an act is to be done a certain amount of time “after the service of a notice or other paper upon that party” and the service is made by mail, did not apply. See Horvath v. Horvath, 893 So.2d 649, 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Jewish Fed’n of Palm Beach Coun[123]*123ty, Inc. v. Rapaport, 682 So.2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

However, we find that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in failing to consider the former employer’s objections to discovery which were based on privacy and privilege concerns. Austin v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A., 472 So.2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (holding that where privilege is asserted, the trial court should inspect the discovery requested in camera even though the petitioner’s assertion of a privilege was untimely).

Accordingly, the petition is granted to the extent discovery was ordered over such objections, and the trial court on remand is directed to consider on the merits the former employer’s privacy and privilege objections.

GUNTHER, STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Palm Beach Primary Care Associates, Inc. (the former employer) seeks certiorari review of a non-final order which granted the respondent’s motion to compel and required the former employer to disclose allegedly confidential financial and patient data, treating its objections to production as “waived.” We grant the petition.

We agree that the former employer’s response to request for production, like its response to the interrogatories, was untimely. The response was ordered to be provided within ten days of the date of the order compelling it, not within ten days of the date of service of that order. Accordingly, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.090(e), which applies when an act is to be done a certain amount of time “after the service of a notice or other paper upon that party” and the service is made by mail, did not apply. See Horvath v. Horvath, 893 So.2d 649, 651 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Jewish Fed’n of Palm Beach Coun[123]*123ty, Inc. v. Rapaport, 682 So.2d 1149, 1151 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

However, we find that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in failing to consider the former employer’s objections to discovery which were based on privacy and privilege concerns. Austin v. Barnett Bank of S. Fla., N.A., 472 So.2d 830 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985) (holding that where privilege is asserted, the trial court should inspect the discovery requested in camera even though the petitioner’s assertion of a privilege was untimely).

Accordingly, the petition is granted to the extent discovery was ordered over such objections, and the trial court on remand is directed to consider on the merits the former employer’s privacy and privilege objections.

GUNTHER, STONE and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

935 So. 2d 122, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 13309, 2006 WL 2265224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/palm-beach-primary-care-associates-inc-v-mufti-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack