Anchor Nat. Financial Services, Inc. v. Smeltz, 89-01100
| Decision Date | 12 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-01100,89-01100 |
| Citation | 546 So.2d 760,14 Fla. L. Weekly 1686 |
| Parties | 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1686 ANCHOR NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC., Petitioner, v. Gladys SMELTZ and Rose Bagwell, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
O'Bannon M. Cook of Ruden, Barnett, McClosky, Smith, Schuster & Russell, P.A., Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Frank Comparetto, Jr. and W. Clinton Wallace, Lakeland, for respondents.
Anchor National Financial Services (Anchor) petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review a discovery order entered by the circuit court in connection with ongoing litigation between Anchor and respondents Gladys Smeltz and Rose Bagwell. The order requires Anchor to furnish Smeltz and Bagwell with certain discovery materials which Anchor has argued are work product prepared in anticipation of litigation and are therefore privileged. We grant the petition.
Simply stated, the separate complaints filed by Smeltz and Bagwell (consolidated in the trial court for discovery purposes) both allege that Anchor and David Addington, a former employee of Anchor, negligently or fraudulently mismanaged investment funds entrusted to them. Anchor has identified four separate documents which, it asserts, merit the work product privilege. These were viewed by the trial court in camera and are included, under seal, in the record before us. Without revealing the contents of the documents, they may be described as stemming from Anchor's own investigation of Addington, including internal analyses of information garnered during such investigation. Anchor submitted an affidavit by former assistant general counsel Brenda Sneed to the effect that each of these items was prepared pursuant to her instruction, in anticipation of potential litigation stemming from Addington's business activities.
We find ample evidence that the disputed items were prepared in anticipation of litigation and therefore that a limited privilege attaches to them. This conclusion is based upon the unrefuted Sneed affidavit and an examination of the materials themselves. In so holding we note that materials such as these may qualify as work product even if, as here, no specific litigation was pending at the time the materials were compiled. Even preliminary investigative materials are privileged if compiled in response to some event which foreseeably could be made the basis of a claim. See, e.g., Florida Cypress Gardens, Inc. v. Murphy, 471 So.2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allstate Indem. Co. v. Ruiz
...(Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Fla. Dep't of Ins., 694 So.2d 772 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Anchor Nat'l Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Smeltz, 546 So.2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Because we conclude there is clearly conflict and confusion in the application of discovery concepts in the ca......
-
Int'l House of Pancakes v. Robinson
...“compiled in response to some event which foreseeably could be made the basis of a [legal] claim.” Anchor Nat'l Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Smeltz, 546 So.2d 760, 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). In Neighborhood Health Partnership, Inc. v. Peter F. Merkle, M.D., P.A., 8 So.3d 1180, 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Knapp
...faith claim and the possibility for finding that the work product privilege would attach to them. See Anchor Nat'l Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Smeltz , 546 So.2d 760, 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). If on remand the trial court agrees that State Farm's work product claims are valid, Respondent would be en......
-
Zirkelbach Constr., Inc. v. Rajan
...privileged if compiled in response to some event which foreseeably could be made the basis of a claim.Anchor Nat'l Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Smeltz, 546 So.2d 760, 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). “The key factor in [this] determination is whether the documents were ‘prepared in anticipation of litigatio......