Spector v. Alter

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Spector v. Alter

138 So. 2d 517, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3424

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 15, 1962

DocketNo. 61-702

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 138 So. 2d 517 (Spector v. Alter) 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

Spector v. Alter, 138 So. 2d 517, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3424 (Fla. Ct. App. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellants seek review by interlocutory appeal of an order in chancery. The order complained of quashed a notice to take the deposition of Lawrence E. Hoffman, the attorney for the appellees-defendants below, on the ground that “any matter inquired into would be privileged.”

We recognize that the trial judge, under our rules ¹ may, in his discretion, suppress or qualify the right to take depositions, but it is limited to those instances in which good cause is made to appear. See Ellard v. Godwin, Fla.1955, 77 So.2d 617.

In quashing the order appealed the lower court has improperly prevented the appellants from seeking proper discovery information in areas not privileged. See Dade County, By and Through Board of County Com’rs v. Bosch, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 578. Many communications in which an attorney is involved are not privileged. Hood v. Hood, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 422.

We find that the record does not support the lower court’s finding that all relevant matters which could be the subject of the deposition of the appellee’s attorney would necessarily be privileged. There being no showing of good cause, the appellants are thus entitled to depose the attorney, Lawrence E. Hoffman. However, if at any time it appears that appellants are seeking discovery of information which is privileged, a proper protective motion may be made. It follows therefore, that it was error to enter the order appealed.

Reversed.

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

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellants seek review by interlocutory appeal of an order in chancery. The order complained of quashed a notice to take the deposition of Lawrence E. Hoffman, the attorney for the appellees-defendants below, on the ground that “any matter inquired into would be privileged.”

We recognize that the trial judge, under our rules ¹ may, in his discretion, suppress or qualify the right to take depositions, but it is limited to those instances in which good cause is made to appear. See Ellard v. Godwin, Fla.1955, 77 So.2d 617.

In quashing the order appealed the lower court has improperly prevented the appellants from seeking proper discovery information in areas not privileged. See Dade County, By and Through Board of County Com’rs v. Bosch, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 578. Many communications in which an attorney is involved are not privileged. Hood v. Hood, Fla.App.1958, 100 So.2d 422.

We find that the record does not support the lower court’s finding that all relevant matters which could be the subject of the deposition of the appellee’s attorney would necessarily be privileged. There being no showing of good cause, the appellants are thus entitled to depose the attorney, Lawrence E. Hoffman. However, if at any time it appears that appellants are seeking discovery of information which is privileged, a proper protective motion may be made. It follows therefore, that it was error to enter the order appealed.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 So. 2d 517, 1962 Fla. App. LEXIS 3424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spector-v-alter-fladistctapp-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack