Reynolds v. Hofmann, 74--520
| Decision Date | 31 December 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--520,74--520 |
| Citation | 305 So.2d 294 |
| Parties | Marie REYNOLDS and Josh Reynolds, Petitioners, v. Robert HOFMANN, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Heiman & Crary, and William A. Meadows, Jr., Miami, for petitioners.
Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Proenza & Richman and Phillip E. Walker, Miami, for respondent.
Before HENDRY, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
By way of petition for writ of certiorari, appellants seek review of an order denying their motion to compel.
Plaintiff-appellee, Robert Hofmann, in the summer of 1973 filed an action for slander against the defendants-appellants, Marie and Josh Reynolds. Defendants filed a counterclaim alleging a conspiracy to cheat and defraud.
On or about May 30, 1973, the plaintiff, the defendants and several witnesses met at the apartment of Mrs. Connie Dinkler, a mutual friend. This meeting was held in anticipation of the possibility of litigation and in an effort to settle the difficulties prior to any court action. Plaintiff, after informing all those in attendance, made a contemporaneous tape recording of this meeting. During pretrial discovery, defendants-appellants requested that plaintiff produce this tape. Plaintiff-appellee objected to the production thereof and thereupon defendants filed a motion to compel discovery. After hearing oral argument thereon the trial judge denied defendants' motion to compel discovery and held that the tape recording was work product and, therefore, not discoverable provided that counsel for plaintiff limit the use of the tape for impeachment purposes at trial. Thereupon, appellants filed the instant petition for writ of certiorari.
Appellants contend that the tape recording of the conversation between the parties to this law suit is not work product and, therefore, discoverable. We agree.
One of the primary purposes of pretrial discovery is to discover evidence relevant and pertinent to the triable issues pending before the court so that the litigation should no longer proceed as a game of 'blind man's bluff.' Jones v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, Fla.App.1974, 297 So.2d 861.
Hereunder, we first must dispose of plaintiff-respondent's argument that the instant tape recording is work product and thus privileged. Generally, the following has been categorized as work product and, therefore, absent rare and exceptional circumstances, cannot be examined: personal views of an attorney as to how and when to present evidence, his evaluation of its importance, his knowledge of which witness will give certain testimony, personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King Pest Control v. Binger
...supra, in holding that surveillance movies are subject to discovery if they are to be used at trial. The Third District followed suit in Reynolds, supra, in holding that a tape recording of a meeting was subject to discovery over objection that the recording was work product only to be used......
-
Colonies Condominium Ass'n, Inc. v. Clairview Holdings, Inc.
...Insurance Company v. Blair, 380 So.2d 1305 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Springer v. Greer, 341 So.2d 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Reynolds v. Hofmann, 305 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Brennan v. Board of Public Instruction, 244 So.2d 463 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Leithauser v. Harrison, 168 So.2d 95 (Fla. ......
-
Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Blair, 79-134
...instructions, diagrams and charts he may refer to at trial for his convenience, but not to be used as evidence. Reynolds v. Hofmann, 305 So.2d 294, 295 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974). To bring something within the "work-product" ambit, there must be some indication of personal thought, views, knowledg......
-
Caribbean Sec. Systems, Inc. v. Security Control Systems, Inc., 85-2607
...the issues as framed by the pleadings. City of Miami v. Fraternal Order of Police, 346 So.2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Reynolds v. Hofmann, 305 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Jones v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 297 So.2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). Discovery of documents in the possessi......
-
Deposing "apex" officials in Florida.
...[8] See Southern Mill Creek Products Company v. Delta Chemical Company, 203 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1967). [9] Reynolds v. Hofmann, 305 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1974) citing Jones v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 297 So. 2d 861 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. [10] See TEX. R. CIV. P. 200 (party......