Stok v. Turnberry 12G, LLC

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Stok v. Turnberry 12G, LLC

275 So. 3d 772

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 26, 2019

DocketNo. 3D19-600

StatusPublished

This text of 275 So. 3d 772 (Stok v. Turnberry 12G, LLC) 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

Stok v. Turnberry 12G, LLC, 275 So. 3d 772 (Fla. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

*773We grant the petition and quash the parts of the order allowing subpoenas directed to a law firm seeking records of third parties that are claimed to be protected by the third parties' attorney client privileges. We similarly quash the parts of the order allowing subpoenas seeking the medical records of third parties that are claimed to violate the third parties' right to privacy. The trial court order indicates that these objections were overcome simply by requiring a confidentiality order. Without the trial court establishing a method to review and determine which, if any, of these materials were so privileged, the order reflects a departure from the essential requirement of law. Patrowicz v. Wolff , 110 So. 3d 973, 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citing Snyder v. Value Rent-A-Car , 736 So. 2d 780, 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ) ("The failure to address whether a claimed privilege applies prior to ordering the disclosure of documents is a departure from the essential requirements of the law.").

Otherwise, we deny the petition for certiorari. Subpoenas for materials other than the medical records of third parties and the records of the law firm may issue. This part of our order is without prejudice to the subpoenaed party or other party with a lawful claim of a privilege from filing objections and a privilege log. All other documents responsive to the subpoenas shall be produced.

Granted in part and denied in part.

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

PER CURIAM.

*773We grant the petition and quash the parts of the order allowing subpoenas directed to a law firm seeking records of third parties that are claimed to be protected by the third parties' attorney client privileges. We similarly quash the parts of the order allowing subpoenas seeking the medical records of third parties that are claimed to violate the third parties' right to privacy. The trial court order indicates that these objections were overcome simply by requiring a confidentiality order. Without the trial court establishing a method to review and determine which, if any, of these materials were so privileged, the order reflects a departure from the essential requirement of law. Patrowicz v. Wolff , 110 So. 3d 973, 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citing Snyder v. Value Rent-A-Car , 736 So. 2d 780, 782 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ) ("The failure to address whether a claimed privilege applies prior to ordering the disclosure of documents is a departure from the essential requirements of the law.").

Otherwise, we deny the petition for certiorari. Subpoenas for materials other than the medical records of third parties and the records of the law firm may issue. This part of our order is without prejudice to the subpoenaed party or other party with a lawful claim of a privilege from filing objections and a privilege log. All other documents responsive to the subpoenas shall be produced.

Granted in part and denied in part.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 So. 3d 772, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stok-v-turnberry-12g-llc-fladistctapp-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack