Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; June 25, 2012; Florida; State Appellate Court
Petitioner Heartland Express, Inc. seeks certiorari review of a trial court order compelling the disclosure of information related to its risk management investigation, which Heartland claims is protected as work-product privilege. Respondent Juan Torres, in a negligence lawsuit stemming from a traffic accident, sought specific information during the deposition of Heartland’s corporate representative, including whether the accident was deemed preventable and related inquiries about the investigation's findings. Heartland's counsel objected to these questions, instructing the witness not to answer. The trial court granted Torres' motion to compel, ruling that Heartland failed to establish a legal basis for privilege concerning questions 1 and 2, and deemed questions 5 and 7 non-privileged based on case law. Heartland contended that the trial court’s decision constituted a significant legal error that could result in irreparable harm, as compelled disclosure of privileged information is considered injurious. The court ultimately agreed with Heartland, quashing the order for questions 1, 2, 5, and 7, while denying relief for the remaining questions. The analysis emphasized the protection afforded by the work-product doctrine, which encompasses both factual and opinion work-product developed in anticipation of litigation.
Information that qualifies as work-product protection can only be disclosed in discovery if the requesting party demonstrates a substantial need and undue hardship in obtaining equivalent materials through other means, as outlined in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(3). This protection applies to materials prepared by attorneys, investigators, and non-attorneys in anticipation of litigation. Cases such as Southern Bell Tel. Tel. Co. v. Deason and Metric Engineering, Inc. v. Small affirm that information gathered by corporate risk management employees is also protected. It is established that work-product protection does not require a lawsuit to be filed; even preliminary investigations can qualify when litigation is anticipated.
In the case at hand, Torres sought to discover information from Heartland’s risk manager regarding a risk management investigation conducted after an accident. The questions posed by Torres pertained to the investigation's findings, including the preventability of the accident and the driver's speed. Since this information was protected as work-product and Torres failed to show a need or undue hardship, the trial court's order compelling disclosure was deemed incorrect. Consequently, the petition for certiorari was granted concerning these questions, and the order was quashed.
Additionally, the trial court incorrectly ruled that Florida Rules of Civil Procedure prevent counsel from instructing a deponent not to answer a question. Rule 1.310(c) allows such instructions when necessary to preserve a privilege.
