Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Doe

• Decision Date: 23 May 2007
• Docket Number: No. 3D06-1885.,3D06-1885.
• Citation: 964 So.2d 713
• Parties: ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Petitioner, v. Jane DOE & Jane Doe, as natural parent and guardian of Sara Doe, a minor, Respondents.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

964 So.2d 713

ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES, LTD., Petitioner, v. Jane DOE & Jane Doe, as natural parent and guardian of Sara Doe, a minor, Respondents.

No. 3D06-1885.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 23, 2007.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied October 11, 2007.

Lauri Waldman Ross and Theresa L. Girten; Maltzman Foreman and Darren W. Friedman, Miami, for petitioner.

Philip D. Parrish; Guilford & Rash, Miami, for respondents.

Before WELLS, ROTHENBERG, and LAGOA, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, Judge.

Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. ("RCCL") petitions this court for a writ of certiorari, seeking to quash an order requiring it to provide certain discovery to Jane Doe, and Jane Doe as natural parent and guardian of Sara Doe, a minor; Jane Doe individually ("Jane"); and Sara Doe, a minor ("Sara").

The Does filed an amended complaint against RCCL, asserting several causes of action, including negligence. The general allegations provide that while the Does were passengers on RCCL's M/S Sovereign of the Seas, a crewmember forced his way into their cabin and assaulted and/or battered Jane.¹ During the assault, Sara called RCCL's security office, but security personnel did not immediately react to Sara's plea for help. After "wrestling" the crewmember out of the cabin, Jane called security, and eventually, security responded.

The negligence count asserts, in part, that RCCL did not "exercise reasonable care" because it failed to properly control and/or supervise its employees; failed to provide proper security measures to protect its passengers; and failed to properly screen, train, and/or monitor its crewmembers. The Does also asserted that RCCL was negligent in hiring the particular crewmember involved in the alleged incident because RCCL failed to appropriately investigate this crewmember, and that if RCCL would have done so, it would have discovered that he was unsuitable as an "employee for the particular duty performed or for employment in general"; that the crewmember "had previously assaulted, harassed or battered a passenger or co-worker or engaged in other activities that would have indicated to [RCCL] that he would harm passengers"; and that the crewmember was "predisposed to commit" the alleged acts.

The Does submitted Interrogatories and a Request for Production to RCCL. Interrogatory # 18 provides as follows:

In the 5 years that predate the date of this incident, how many reports have [sic] Royal Caribbean International received concerning a crewmember either battering or assaulting a passenger. The information sought here concerns Royal Caribbean International's entire fleet, including vessels owned[,] operated or managed by its subsidiaries and affiliates.

Request for Production # 10 provides as follows:

A copy of all incident/accident reports regarding prior accidents or incidents involving claims of crew members [sic] assaults occurring on vessels owned, operated, or managed by Royal Caribbean International or any of its subsidiaries for the 5 year period predating the incident described in the Complaint.

RCCL objected to Interrogatory # 18 and Request for Production # 10, arguing that the discovery was irrelevant, immaterial, overbroad, burdensome, harassing, oppressive, and would not likely lead to admissible evidence. The Does filed a motion to compel RCCL to respond. The trial court overruled RCCL's objections and ordered RCCL to respond within sixty days.

RCCL filed a motion for reconsideration, asserting that the incident/accident reports were protected by the work-product privilege. In support of its motion for reconsideration, RCCL submitted an affidavit by Pamela Powell, RCCL's Supervisor of the Guest Claims Department. Powell averred that after any incident is alleged on a RCCL vessel, RCCL creates an incident report, and thereafter, the report is automatically sent to the "Risk Management Department for further handling and use in connection with the anticipated defense of any claim which arises from said incident." Powell also explained that:

RCCL has never been ordered to produce a listing of reports where someone felt that they were going to be battered, but were not actually battered. RCCL maintains a database of incidents, but the categorization of those incidents does not include assaults as such. This Court's order would require Defendant to inspect every incident report ever written over a 5 year period to determine if somewhere in that report a passenger indicated that while they were never touched, they feared they might be.

Powell additionally claimed that the discovery order would require RCCL to search its documents for twenty-nine vessels.

While its motion for reconsideration was pending, RCCL filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this court seeking to quash the trial court's discovery order. This court deferred ruling on RCCL's petition to allow the trial court to rule on RCCL's motion for reconsideration.

At the hearing on RCCL's motion for reconsideration, RCCL argued that it could not obtain the information the Does were seeking by searching its computer databases. RCCL's counsel explained, "[W]hen you are dealing with an assault where someone fears they are going to be raped, there is not a categorization for that." Regarding RCCL's asserted work-product privilege, counsel for the Does claimed that RCCL had waived the privilege due to RCCL's failure to prepare a privilege log. The trial court ruled that RCCL's work-product objection was timely, and while narrowing the scope of discovery, the trial court ordered RCCL to provide the requested discovery as follows:

2. The scope of Interrogatory # 18 requiring the number of reports RCCL has received concerning a crew member [sic] battering or assaulting a passenger is hereby narrowed by the Court. Interrogatory # 18 is now more specific to define assault and battery as including any definitions under common law, including Florida statutes, deletes the requirement for any interrogatory answers to include "all vessels owned, operated or managed by RCCL's subsidiaries and affiliates". RCCL's objection to the narrowed interrogatory is overruled and it is required to furnish the requested information for all RCI [Royal Caribbean International] ships.

3. Request for Production # 10 requires RCCL to produce all incident/accident reports for "crew member [sic] assaults" on all RCCL vessels. The scope of this request is hereby narrowed to three (3) years and deletes the requirements for such production to include "all vessels owned, operated or managed by RCCL's subsidiaries or affiliates.["] RCCL's objection is sustained. The Court shall require RCCL to produce the names and addresses and all other contact information of all individuals who have knowledge of the incident[s], including those from whom statements were taken[.] RCCL has the option of producing the incident reports themselves in lieu of listing such names and addresses and other contact information. This order does not require the production of the names and addresses of any victims covered by any rape shield statute.[²]

In this amended petition for writ of certiorari, RCCL seeks to quash the trial court's discovery order entered on RCCL's motion for reconsideration. The party seeking to quash a pretrial discovery order by certiorari must establish that the discovery order is a departure from the essential requirements of law, which, if uncorrected, will result in material injury that cannot be remedied on direct appeal. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987)("Orders granting discovery . . . have traditionally been reviewed by certiorari. The rationale . . . is that appeal after final judgment is unlikely to be an adequate remedy because once discovery is wrongfully granted, the complaining party is beyond relief.") (citations omitted); Miami Heart Inst. v. Reis, 638 So.2d 530, 531 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)("Certiorari is the appropriate method by which to review an order entered in connection with discovery proceedings."); see also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Cambron, 936 So.2d 1210, 1212 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)("Under Florida law, certiorari is the appropriate remedy when a discovery order departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings and effectively leaving no adequate...