Ruby Tuesday, Inc. v. Metalonis

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ruby Tuesday, Inc. v. Metalonis

225 So. 3d 397, 2017 WL 3642017, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12106

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 25, 2017

DocketCase 5D17-1158

StatusPublished

This text of 225 So. 3d 397 (Ruby Tuesday, Inc. v. Metalonis) 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

Ruby Tuesday, Inc. v. Metalonis, 225 So. 3d 397, 2017 WL 3642017, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12106 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners challenge an order compelling the production of an incident report prepared after Respondent allegedly was injured when a chair collapsed at a Ruby Tuesday restaurant. Although the trial court’s order compelling production of the incident report does not provide the court’s reasoning, Respondent argued below that the report was not made in anticipation of litigation and that she had a demonstrated need for the report nevertheless.

The determination of whether an incident report was prepared in anticipation of litigation turns on whether “the document was prepared in response to some event which foreseeably could be made the basis of a claim in the future.” Marshalls of MA, Inc. v. Minsal, 932 So.2d 444, 446-47 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Although the subjective intent of the reporter in making the report might be relevant to this determination, it is by no means dispositive because an objective standard applies. Here, the reporter testified that she made the report in accordance with company policy to report incidents of injury to patrons. The fact that the reporter did not personally foresee the potential claim and did not know the purpose for the company policy did not negate a finding that the report was work product. It was clear that the alleged injury was caused by an object in Petitioners’ control and there was some evidence to suggest that Petitioners had prior knowledge of the defective condition of the chair. Under the circumstances presented here, it was foreseeable that the event might form the basis for a claim. Accordingly, the incident report was protected work product.

As for Respondent’s argument regarding need, we conclude without elaboration that the present record demonstrates that Respondent did not meet her burden on this issue.

ORDER QUASHED.

COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners challenge an order compelling the production of an incident report prepared after Respondent allegedly was injured when a chair collapsed at a Ruby Tuesday restaurant. Although the trial court’s order compelling production of the incident report does not provide the court’s reasoning, Respondent argued below that the report was not made in anticipation of litigation and that she had a demonstrated need for the report nevertheless.

The determination of whether an incident report was prepared in anticipation of litigation turns on whether “the document was prepared in response to some event which foreseeably could be made the basis of a claim in the future.” Marshalls of MA, Inc. v. Minsal, 932 So.2d 444, 446-47 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Although the subjective intent of the reporter in making the report might be relevant to this determination, it is by no means dispositive because an objective standard applies. Here, the reporter testified that she made the report in accordance with company policy to report incidents of injury to patrons. The fact that the reporter did not personally foresee the potential claim and did not know the purpose for the company policy did not negate a finding that the report was work product. It was clear that the alleged injury was caused by an object in Petitioners’ control and there was some evidence to suggest that Petitioners had prior knowledge of the defective condition of the chair. Under the circumstances presented here, it was foreseeable that the event might form the basis for a claim. Accordingly, the incident report was protected work product.

As for Respondent’s argument regarding need, we conclude without elaboration that the present record demonstrates that Respondent did not meet her burden on this issue.

ORDER QUASHED.

COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and TORPY, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 So. 3d 397, 2017 WL 3642017, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 12106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruby-tuesday-inc-v-metalonis-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack