Grabel v. Sterrett
| Decision Date | 29 April 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 4D14–4780.,4D14–4780. |
| Citation | 163 So.3d 704 |
| Parties | Jordan GRABEL, M.D., and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Linda STERRETT and Michael Sterrett, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
163 So.3d 704
Jordan GRABEL, M.D., and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Petitioners
v.
Linda STERRETT and Michael Sterrett, Respondents.
No. 4D14–4780.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
April 29, 2015.
Ian E. Robinson of Adams Coogler, West Palm Beach, for Petitioner, Jordan Grabel, M.D., and Warren Kwavnick of Cooney Trybus Kwavnick Peets, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.
Gary E. Susser of Gary E. Susser, P.A., Boynton Beach, for respondents.
Opinion
MAY, J.
The parameters of discovery from expert witnesses are questioned in this petition for writ of certiorari. A non-party, medical expert, retained by the insurance company to conduct a compulsory medical examination, petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the circuit court that overruled the expert's objections to a subpoena duces tecum. He argues the court departed from the essential requirements of the law in overruling his objections. We agree and grant the petition.
The plaintiffs filed an uninsured motorists' claim against their insurer. They served a Notice of Video–Taped Deposition, Duces Tecum, of the doctor who performed the compulsory medical examination for the insurer. The subpoena requested the doctor to bring items described in thirty-three paragraphs. The doctor objected to certain items; State Farm moved for a protective order asserting the same objections.
The parties agreed to some of the objections, the trial court sustained some, and overruled others. The overruled objections are the subject of this petition. The relevant requests were found in paragraphs 10, 14, and 27.
Paragraphs 10, 14, and 27 requested production of the following:
10. Copies of all billing invoices submitted by Dr. Grabel to the Defendants, Defendants' attorneys including Shawn Patrick Spellacy, Esq., Kirwan & Spellacy, PA, the Defendants' insurer (State Farm), or agents, or the law firm of Kirw[a]n & Spellacy, P.A., (hereinafter defense law firm), and/or any predecessor and/or successor law firm and/or any of the attorneys presently or formerly employed at the law firm during the years 2009 through 2014 inclusive....
14. A document and/or statement that includes the total amount of money paid by or on behalf of the Defendants and/or their attorneys and/or the defense law firm, and/or any predecessor and/or successor law firm, and/or any of the attorneys presently or formerly employed at the law firm, and/or the Defendants' insurer (State Farm), to Dr. Grabel for work the expert performed as an expert witness on behalf of the Defendants, the Defendants' attorney, Shawn Patrick Spellacy, Esq., Kirwan & Spellacy, PA, and/or the defense law firm, and/or any predecessor and/or successor law firm, and/or any of the attorneys presently or formerly employed at the law firm, and/or the Defendants' insurer (State Farm), during the years 2009 through 2014....
27. All documents evidencing the amount or percentage of work performed by Dr. Grabel on behalf of any
Defendant and/or defense law firm and/or insurance carrier, during the years 2009 through 2014 inclusive, including without limitation time records, invoices, 1099's or other income reporting documents....
The doctor and insurer objected that “the request[s] [were] unduly burdensome, not reasonably limited in time, and beyond permissible expert witness discovery under Rule 1.280(b)(5)(A)(iii) and Elkins v. Syken, 672 So.2d 517 (Fla.1996) [.]” The trial court overruled the objections, but limited the requests to three years. The court did not address the doctor and insurer's objections that the discovery exceeded that allowable by Rule 1.280(b)(5)(A)(iii), did not find “unusual or compelling circumstances”, but compelled the discovery. With regard to paragraph 14, the court ordered the doctor to produce any existing document and to file a statement of record if the document did not exist. If the records and income reporting of 1099's requested in paragraph...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tallo v. Illes
...Mana v. Cho, 147 So. 3d 1098, 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ; Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 66, 70 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) ; Grabel v. Sterrett, 163 So. 3d 704, 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). In similar circumstances, this court has invalidated contempt orders emanating from such erroneous rulings. See Carri......
-
Orthopedic Ctr. of S. Fla. v. Sode, 4D18-3478
...market or advertise using the online services or websites?Certiorari Analysis Certiorari review is discretionary. Grabel v. Sterrett , 163 So. 3d 704, 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015). Before relief may be granted, the petition must establish a departure from the essential requirements of law, resul......
-
Grabel v. Roura
...4, which limits discovery to an approximation of the expert's involvement as an expert witness. See Grabel v. Sterrett, 163 So.3d 704 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (quashing improper expert discovery directed at this same doctor).The defendants and the doctor provided all the information required on ......