Goldstein v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 59-744
| Decision Date | 03 March 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 59-744,59-744 |
| Citation | 118 So.2d 253 |
| Parties | Minerva GOLDSTEIN and her husband, Benjamin Goldstein, Petitioners, v. GREAT ATLANTIC & PACIFIC TEA COMPANY et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard E. Thomas and Von Zamft & Kravitz and Sam Bloom, Miami, for petitioners.
Brown, Dean, Adams & Fischer and Dixon, DeJarnette, Bradford, Williams, McKay & Kimbrell, Miami, for respondents.
Review of a discovery order in a common law negligence action is sought by a petition for certiorari. See Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. Timmons, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 426.
A defendant took the discovery deposition of one G. D. Yanks, an investigator employed by the attorneys for plaintiffs. Yanks had taken certain photographs at the scene of the accident which were intended to be presented by the plaintiff at the trial. It was freely conceded by respondents that their purpose in taking Yanks' deposition was to inquire regarding his taking of the photographs; and also, by counsel for petitioners, that they had intended to use Yanks as a witness at the trial, with reference to the photographs if his testimony should be needed incident thereto.
On advice of counsel for the plaintiffs, Yanks refused to answer certain questions asked him on his deposition which were objected to as calling for revelation of work products of the plaintiffs' counsel and their employed investigator. Certain of the questions which Yanks refused to answer dealt only with the matter of the photographs and were not objectionable, but certain other questions appear to have been subject to the objection made to them by plaintiffs' counsel. Yanks was asked whether he had brought with him 'all records, photographs or other documents in any way relevant to the photographing of the scene' of the accident. That was objected to as it could include documents in the form of reports and communications relating to the accident and investigation of the accident, as well as to the actual photographing of the same. Yanks was asked to produce records that he had made of the photographing, which could include reports to the plaintiffs' attorneys. Also, he was asked generally, 'Have you ever received any instructions in regard to that law suit?'
On motion of the defendant to compel answers, the court entered the order under review, which directed the witness to answer all questions which he had refused to answer in his deposition, and to answer 'all further proper questions relating to the captioned law suit.' The order also imposed penalty costs on the plaintiffs in the amount of $26.15, as a result of the refusal of the witness to answer.
The plaintiffs raised two points, first challenging the propriety of the order requiring the witness to answer such questions, and second, contending that the court erred in imposing the costs.
Petitioners' first contention is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burnett v. State
...if appellant had authorized the disclosure of the tape to an investigator, it still would have been privileged. Goldstein v. Great A & P Tea Co., 118 So.2d 253 (Fla.App.1960). This is because "the privilege must include all the persons who act as the attorney's agents." Wigmore, supra, at S......
-
Commonwealth v. Hutchinson
... ... 464 (E.D.Pa.1979); ... Goldstein v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 118 So.2d ... ...
-
Shell v. State Road Dept., 31165
...under the view that they have the authority to issue such writs in similar cases and have done so. See Goldstein v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Fla.App. 1960, 118 So.2d 253; Boucher v. Pure Oil Company, Fla.App. 1958, 101 So.2d 408; State Road Dept. of Fla. v. Cline, Fla.App. 19......
-
Alachua General Hospital v. Zimmer USA, Inc.
...of the adverse party's need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship. See Goldstein v. Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, 118 So.2d 253, 255 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1960). However, the question of whether or not work product retains its qualified immunity after the initial li......
-
The Civil Litigator
...testimony as to confidential communications made to the psychiatrist by the client); Goldstein v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 118 So.2d 253 (Fla. App. 1960) (Carroll, J., 255: "the plaintiffs' investigator employed by assisting plaintiffs' counsel in the investigation and preparation ......