Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston
| Decision Date | 11 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 83149,83149 |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly S217 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. Joyce LANGSTON, etc., Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Richard A. Sherman and Rosemary B. Wilder of the Law Offices of Richard A. Sherman, P.A., and David L. Taylor of the Law Offices of Leonard C. Bishop, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.
Darryl L. Lewis and William N. Hutchinson, Jr., P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.
We have for review Allstate Insurance Co. v. Langston, 627 So.2d 1178, 1179 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993).
Allstate argues that the decision below expressly and directly conflicts with Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987); Brooks v. Owens, 97 So.2d 693 (Fla.1957); Kilgore v. Bird, 149 Fla. 570, 6 So.2d 541 (1942); HTP Ltd. v. Lineas Aereas Costarricenses, S.A., 634 So.2d 724 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Orange Lake Country Club, Inc. v. Levin, 633 So.2d 1148 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); and Krypton Broadcasting of Jacksonville, Inc. v. MGM-Pathe Communications Co., 629 So.2d 852 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
Because we find conflict with HTP, Ltd., Orange Lake, and Krypton, we have jurisdiction based on article V, section 3(b)(3) of the Florida Constitution. 1
We remand this case for a determination of whether documents sought in a discovery request are relevant.
Joyce Langston, on behalf of her minor child, sued the driver of the car in which her child was riding and sought uninsured motorist (UM) benefits for personal injuries resulting from an accident. Langston did not allege bad faith or unfair claims practices.
Allstate admitted that its policy provided UM coverage, but said Langston was not entitled to benefits because of a dispute about the value of the claim based on issues of negligence and damages.
Langston also filed a multi-paragraph discovery request and sought production of these documents:
3. All internal procedural memos regarding the handling of uninsured motorist claims in effect during the last twelve (12) months.
4. Your latest claims manual on processing and handling of uninsured motorist claims in general.
5. A copy of your standards for the proper investigation of claims that were in effect at any time during the last twenty-four (24) months.
6. All correspondence to or from anyone, including any insurance agencies, any doctors' offices, any employers, any agencies hired to select doctors for "independent medical examinations" and any law enforcement agencies for the uninsured motorist claim involved herein.
Allstate, 627 So.2d at 1178 (quoting discovery request).
Allstate filed timely objections to paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 based on "work product, irrelevant, overbroad, and vague" and raised a work product objection to paragraph 6. The trial court overruled all objections. Allstate petitioned the Fourth District Court of Appeal for relief by writ of certiorari, claiming that the trial judge compelled discovery of irrelevant and privileged materials.
The district court found no basis in the record for Allstate's assertion that the documents requested in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 were work product or within the attorney-client privilege. Id. at 1179. Although the district court said the documents sought in those paragraphs "appear irrelevant" in a suit that does not involve a claim of bad faith or unfair claims practices, the court found that irrelevancy alone was not a basis for granting certiorari absent a showing that disclosure could reasonably cause material injury of an irreparable nature. Id. Allstate did not make such a showing.
As for paragraph 6, the district court said the record did not indicate whether there was a preliminary showing that any documents sought were work product and, if so, whether Langston had shown need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship, as required by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(3). Id. The district court noted that the trial court did not conduct the required in-camera inspection of the items claimed to be work product. Id.
Thus, the district court granted certiorari in part and vacated the trial court's order insofar as it compelled production of certain items in paragraph 6. The court ordered the trial court to conduct an in-camera inspection of specific items in paragraph 6 that Allstate claimed to be work product or within the attorney-client privilege. The court ordered the production of documents sought in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5.
Allstate sought review from this Court based on conflict with Martin-Johnson, Brooks, and Kilgore. In supplemental authority to its jurisdictional brief, Allstate also claimed conflict with HTP Ltd., Orange Lake, and Krypton.
Allstate does not challenge the district court's decision on paragraph 6. Instead, this case concerns the district court's refusal to grant certiorari and review the discovery order as it pertains to documents requested in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5.
Allstate argues that although this is a routine case involving a claim for UM benefits, Langston sought irrelevant and voluminous documents that have nothing to do with UM coverage. The Fourth District recognized that the materials requested in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 appeared irrelevant, but ordered production because Allstate could not establish irreparable harm. Allstate, 627 So.2d at 1179. The insurer urges this Court to quash the order below on paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, arguing that irreparable harm is presumed when discovery is not in any way related to the lawsuit.
Langston argues that the real issue is whether the district court followed the correct standard in deciding whether to grant certiorari. She contends that because Allstate failed to prove it would suffer irreparable injury by producing the requested documents, the district court correctly denied the writ of certiorari for paragraphs 3, 4, and 5.
Discovery in civil cases must be relevant to the subject matter of the case and must be admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Brooks, 97 So.2d at 699; see also Amente v. Newman, 653 So.2d 1030 (Fla.1995) (); Krypton, 629 So.2d at 854 (); Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(1) ().
This Court has held that review by certiorari is appropriate when a discovery order departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury to a petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. Martin-Johnson, 509 So.2d at 1099; see also Brooks; Kilgore.
Discovery of certain kinds of information "may reasonably cause material injury of an irreparable nature." Martin-Johnson, 509 So.2d at 1100. This includes "cat out of the bag" material that could be used to injure another person or party outside the context of the litigation, and material protected by privilege, trade secrets, work product, or involving a confidential informant may cause such injury if disclosed. 2 Id.
But not every erroneous discovery order creates certiorari jurisdiction because some orders are subject to adequate redress by plenary appeal from a final judgment. Id.
The materials Langston sought in ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Alterra Healthcare Corporation v. Estate of Shelley
...process. THE TRIAL COURT'S RELEVANCY ANALYSIS MAY IMPLICATE A WEIGHING OF COMPETING RIGHTS As this Court stated in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Fla.1995), it is axiomatic that discovery in civil cases must be Discovery in civil cases must be relevant to the subject matt......
-
Bd. of Trs. of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC
...discovery order,” see Katzman v. Rediron Fabrication, Inc., 76 So.3d 1060, 1062 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995)), and overbreadth alone is not a basis on which such jurisdiction will be granted. In Katzman, the Fourth District added tha......
-
Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Winckler
...orders by writs of certiorari under Art. V, section 4(b)(3), Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App. P. 9.030 (b)(2)(A) ; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94-95 (Fla. 1995). Here, we should grant the writ and quash the order.Respondents persuaded the lower court to allow for the issuance of ......
-
Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Higgins
...be remedied on appeal from a final order. Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995). "[A]s a condition precedent to invoking a district court's certiorari jurisdiction, the petitioning party must esta......
-
The continuing story of certiorari.
...narrow way. (18) The Supreme Court further explored its certiorari views with its decisions in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995), and Globe Newspaper Co. v. King, 658 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1995). Langston held that irreparable harm can be shown "when it has been affir......
-
Common law writs - from the practical to the extraordinary.
...Inc. v. St. John's County, 608 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 1992). (13) Wilson, 690 So. 2d at 1363. (14) Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995); Quarles & Brady, LLP v. Birdsall, 802 So. 2d 1205 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2002); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Kendrick, 780 S......
-
Chapter 19-4 Appeals Used in Foreclosure Proceedings
...intervention); Fed. Nat'l Mortgage Ass'n v. Gallant, 211 So. 3d 1055, 1057-58 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017).[63] Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995); Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 1987) (Information which may cause material injury includes "cat out o......
-
Chapter 18-4 Types of Appeals Used in Foreclosure
...App. P. 9.100(h).[48] Fla. R App. P. 9.030(b); Jaye v. Royal Saxon, Inc., 720 So. 2d 214 (Fla. 1998).[49] Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995); Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987) (Information which may cause material injury includes "cat out of t......