City of Orlando v. Desjardins
| Citation | 493 So.2d 1027,11 Fla. L. Weekly 474 |
| Decision Date | 11 September 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 67195,67195 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 474 CITY OF ORLANDO, Petitioner, v. Roland E. DESJARDINS, et ux., et al., Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Florida |
Page 1027
v.
Roland E. DESJARDINS, et ux., et al., Respondents.
Page 1028
Steven F. Lengauer of Pitts, Eubanks, Hannah, Hilyard & Marsee, P.A., Orlando, for petitioner.
William W. Fernandez and Ciro A. Gonzales, Jr. of Law Offices of William W. Fernandez, Orlando, for respondents.
ADKINS, Justice.
In City of Orlando v. Desjardins, 469 So.2d 831 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985), the district court affirmed the trial court's order interpreting the Florida Public Records Act, chapter 119, Florida Statutes (1983), as requiring the City of Orlando (City) to produce its litigation file, excluding attorney's notes and papers and pleadings filed with the court, to the adversary party in ongoing litigation. In so holding, the court found inapplicable the limited statutory attorney-client exemption set forth in section 119.07(3)(o ), Florida Statutes (Supp.1984). We find conflict with our decision in City of North Miami v. Miami Herald Publishing Co., 468 So.2d 218 (Fla.1985), and quash the opinion under review.
After suffering injuries in an automobile accident, respondent Desjardins sued the City based on its allegedly negligent inspection and maintenance of a traffic signal. In July, 1984, Desjardins served upon the City a request to produce its litigation file under the Public Records Act. The City declined to produce, arguing that the file was protected by the work product rule and the attorney-client privilege. In December, 1984, the trial court rejected both claims and entered an order requiring the City to produce the file.
In so ruling, the trial court refused to apply the statutory exemption of section 119.07(3)(o ). That section provides, in relevant part:
A public record which was prepared by an agency attorney (including an attorney employed or retained by the agency or employed or retained by another public officer or agency to protect or represent the interests of the agency having custody of the record) or prepared at the attorney's express direction, which reflects a mental impression, conclusion, litigation strategy, or legal theory of the attorney or the agency, and which was prepared exclusively for civil or criminal litigation or for adversarial administrative proceedings, or which was prepared in anticipation of imminent civil or criminal litigation or imminent adversarial administrative proceedings, is exempt from the provisions of [the Public Records Act] until the conclusion of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pompey v. Cochran
...Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Laforet, 658 So.2d 55 (Fla.1995) (procedural or remedial statute acts retrospectively); City of Orlando v. Desjardins, 493 So.2d 1027 (Fla.1986) (remedial statute can and should be retroactively applied in order to save its intended purpose). The plurality's fail......
-
Brown v. City of Clewiston
...found to be remedial in nature," and "should be retroactively applied in order to serve its intended purposes." City of Orlando v. Desjardins, 493 So.2d 1027, 1028 (Fla.1986). Cf. Village of El Portal v. City of Miami Shores, 362 So.2d 275, 278 (Fla.1978) (statute that expressly applied to ......
-
Campus Communications, Inc. v. Earnhardt
...Lakeland v. Catinella, 129 So.2d 133 (Fla. 1961); Grammer v. Roman, 174 So.2d 443 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)); see also City of Orlando v. Desjardins, 493 So.2d 1027, 1028 (Fla.1986) ("If a statute is found to be remedial in nature, it can and should be retroactively applied in order to serve its i......
-
State ex rel. Leslie v. Ohio Hous. Fin. Agency
......at Comment b ; see, e.g., Orlando v. Desjardins (Fla.1986), 493 So.2d 1027, 1029. Ohio courts are no exception. See, e.g., TBC ......