Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves a legal dispute between two parties, David Bolton and Marie Buscemi, with issues arising from Bolton's attempts to serve a notice of deposition on Buscemi in a Circuit Court case. Bolton's efforts were thwarted as Buscemi's location was unknown, prompting him to attempt service on Buscemi's attorneys, Greenberg Traurig, in a different case. The attorneys filed motions to quash the service based on attorney-client privilege, which the trial court initially granted. However, the trial court also required the attorneys to accept service of the deposition notice, a decision Greenberg Traurig challenged via a petition for writ of certiorari. The appellate court granted the petition, finding that service should only occur if the attorneys represent the party in the specific case, which was not the situation here. Additionally, Bolton's cross-petition was successful in contesting the protective order and quashing of subpoenas, as the court ruled that information about Buscemi's whereabouts and assets is not protected by privilege and should be discoverable. Consequently, both the original trial court orders were quashed. Furthermore, the trial court permitted Greenberg Traurig's withdrawal from representing Buscemi in the other case later that year.
Legal Issues Addressed
Attorney-Client Privilege and Discoverabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that information regarding a party's whereabouts and assets is not protected by attorney-client privilege and should be discoverable.
Reasoning: The court ruled in favor of Bolton, stating that information regarding Buscemi's whereabouts and assets is not protected by attorney-client privilege and should be discoverable.
Departure from Essential Requirements of Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's order requiring Greenberg Traurig to accept service was deemed a legal error due to lack of representation in the relevant case.
Reasoning: Since Greenberg Traurig did not represent Buscemi in Case No. 90-58735, the trial court's order was deemed a legal error.
Service of Process under Florida Rules of Civil Proceduresubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that service of a deposition notice should be made on an attorney only if they represent the party in the specific case at hand.
Reasoning: The court granted this petition, citing Rule 1.080(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that service should be made on an attorney only if they represent the party in the case at hand.