Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Asplundh Tree Expert Co. petitioned against a court order mandating one of its attorneys to answer questions related to a wood chipper involved in a plaintiff's injury. The primary legal issue concerned the protection of communications under attorney-client privilege, as governed by Florida Statute 90.502(2), and case law such as United Servs. Auto Ass’n v. Crews. The court also considered whether communications between Asplundh’s attorney and the president of a co-defendant company were protected under the common interests exception, referencing Rodan v. Doyle and Visual Scene, Inc. v. Pilkington Brothers. It was determined that the privilege was not waived by a co-defendant's letter citing advice from an attorney, as clarified in Prieto v. Union American Ins. Co. The court concluded that the substantive and related background questions were protected from discovery. The procedural deficiencies in the order compelling testimony from an out-of-state attorney were not addressed, but ultimately, the appellate court granted certiorari and quashed the lower court’s order for deposition. The decision maintained the confidentiality of privileged communications, with concurrence from Judges Gunther, Stevenson, and Gross.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorney-Client Privilege under Florida Statute 90.502(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court protects communications between Asplundh’s attorney and parties involved as privileged, preventing mandatory disclosure during discovery.
Reasoning: The inquiries are deemed protected under attorney-client privilege according to Florida Statute 90.502(2) and relevant case law, including United Servs. Auto Ass’n v. Crews.
Common Interests Exception to Waiver of Privilegesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court finds communications between Asplundh’s attorney and the co-defendant's president are protected due to shared legal interests, preserving privilege.
Reasoning: Communications between Asplundh’s attorney and the president of the co-defendant company (the wood chipper seller) are also protected under the common interests exception to the waiver of privilege, as established in Rodan v. Doyle and Visual Scene, Inc. v. Pilkington Brothers.
Discovery Limitations on Privileged Communicationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Substantive questions protected by privilege were upheld as non-discoverable, and related non-substantive background questions were also exempt from discovery.
Reasoning: Since the privilege applies to the substantive questions posed, related background questions are not subject to discovery.
Non-Waiver of Privilege through Reference to Legal Advicesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: A letter from the co-defendant mentioning legal advice did not waive privilege related to Asplundh’s attorney, as the advice stemmed from another attorney.
Reasoning: A letter from the co-defendant referencing advice from 'our attorney' did not waive any privilege regarding communications with Asplundh’s attorney, as indicated in Prieto v. Union American Ins. Co.
Quashing of Orders Compelling Testimonysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court quashed the lower court's order requiring deposition testimony from Asplundh's out-of-state attorney due to privilege protections.
Reasoning: The petition for certiorari is granted, and the order requiring attorney Hamm's deposition is quashed.