Summary
finding that billing information that does not reveal mental impressions and opinions of counsel is not privileged
Summary of this case from Ctr. for Individual Rights v. ChevaldinaOpinion
Case No. 4D03-4909.
Opinion filed March 31, 2004.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Lawrence J. Korda, Judge, L.T. Case No. 01-017042-41-90.
H.T. Maloney of Patterson Maloney, Ft. Lauderdale, for petitioner.
Michael A. Hymowitz of the Law Offices of Braverman and Rossi, Ft. Lauderdale, for respondent.
Petitioner husband seeks certiorari review of a trial court order allowing discovery of his attorney's fee retainer agreements and billing and payment records. He contends they are protected by the attorney/client privilege and apparently assumes, without citing any authority, that billing information in and of itself is not discoverable.
If this billing information contained descriptions of services rendered which would reveal the mental impressions and opinions of counsel, that information should be redacted as privileged, Old Holdings. Ltd. v. Taplin, Howard, Shaw Miller, P.A., 584 So.2d 1128 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); however, the remaining information is not privileged and therefore discoverable.
This court has recently allowed discovery of defense counsel's billing records because they were relevant to plaintiff's claim for prevailing party attorney's fees. Brown Distrib. Co. of West Palm Beach v. Marcel, 866 So.2d 160 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). In this case it is relevant to the issue of alimony, child support, equitable distribution, and attorney's fees. The petition for certiorari is therefore dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.