You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Anderson

Citations: 92 So. 3d 922; 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 12119; 2012 WL 3023216Docket: No. 4D12-103

Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; July 25, 2012; Florida; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In a legal dispute following a slip and fall incident at a Publix grocery store, the plaintiff sought discovery of certain reports, which Publix claimed were protected under the work-product privilege. The contested documents, an incident report and a witness statement, were prepared on the day of the incident and labeled as confidential. The trial court initially ordered their production after an in-camera review, but Publix successfully petitioned for certiorari review. The appellate court quashed the trial court's order, citing Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(3), which protects such materials unless the requesting party shows substantial need and inability to obtain the information by other means. The court emphasized the necessity of maintaining confidentiality in materials prepared in anticipation of litigation to enable thorough investigation and candid preparation. The decision underscored that the plaintiff had other avenues, such as depositions, to obtain the required information without accessing privileged documents. The appellate court's ruling reinforced the protection of work-product materials in litigation contexts, with Judges May and Stevenson concurring in the decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Certiorari Review in Discovery Disputes

Application: Certiorari review was granted to Publix, leading to the quashing of the trial court's order to produce documents protected under work-product privilege.

Reasoning: Publix sought certiorari review of this order, which was granted, resulting in the quashing of the trial court's order.

Discovery of Work Product

Application: The court evaluated whether the plaintiff demonstrated a need for the work-product materials that could not be obtained without undue hardship, ultimately determining that the plaintiff failed to meet this standard.

Reasoning: Publix established that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate an inability to obtain equivalent information through other means, such as depositions.

Preparation of Documents in Anticipation of Litigation

Application: The court determined that the incident report and witness statement were prepared in anticipation of litigation due to the nature of the slip and fall incident.

Reasoning: The reports explicitly stated they were prepared in anticipation of litigation and were confidential.

Work-Product Privilege under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(3)

Application: The work-product privilege was invoked by Publix to protect documents prepared in anticipation of litigation from being disclosed in discovery.

Reasoning: Publix invoked work-product privilege, identifying two documents: an incident report by the assistant store manager and a witness statement from customer service staff, both created on the day of the incident.