From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Austin v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jul 10, 1985
472 So. 2d 830 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Summary

holding that where privilege is asserted, the trial court should inspect the discovery requested in camera even though the petitioner's assertion of a privilege was untimely

Summary of this case from Palm Beach Primary Care Inc. v. Mufti

Opinion

No. 85-269.

July 10, 1985.

Petition for review from the Circuit Court, Broward County, Lamar Warren, Acting Judge.

Rhea Grossman of Grossman Eichenbaum, P.A., Miami, for petitioner.

Jeffrey Allan Hirsch and Marilyn Holifield of Holland Knight, Fort Lauderdale, for respondent.


Petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order compelling the production of documents claimed to be privileged. The trial court's order was based, at least in part, on the fact that petitioner's assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination was untimely. We grant the petition for writ of certiorari.

As we interpret rule 1.380(d), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, its proscription that "[t]he failure to act described in this subdivision may not be excused on the ground that the discovery sought is objectionable unless the party failing to act has applied for a protective order as provided by Rule 1.280(c)" does not apply where the matters sought to be discovered are claimed to be privileged. This follows from the fact that rule 1.280(c) refers to issuance of a protective order only "to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense . . . ." and does not refer to privilege. We think the omission was intentional and that the word "objectionable" in rule 1.380(d) therefore should be construed as referring only to items which are within the scope of discovery; that is, not privileged ( see Insurance Co. of North America v. Noya, 398 So.2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)), but to which objection is made for one of the reasons set forth in rule 1.280(c). Thus rule 1.380(d) does not require timely objection to privileged matters. See Gross v. Security Trust Co., 462 So.2d 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). We certify direct conflict with American Funding, Limited v. Hill, 402 So.2d 1369 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981), on this issue.

Where a claim of privilege is asserted, the trial court should hold an in camera inspection to review the discovery requested and determine whether assertion of the privilege is valid. Gross, 462 So.2d at 581; see also Meek v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 458 So.2d 412 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); DeLisi v. Bankers Insurance Co., 436 So.2d 1099 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983).

We therefore grant the petition and quash the order under review.

CERTIORARI GRANTED.

DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Austin v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District
Jul 10, 1985
472 So. 2d 830 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

holding that where privilege is asserted, the trial court should inspect the discovery requested in camera even though the petitioner's assertion of a privilege was untimely

Summary of this case from Palm Beach Primary Care Inc. v. Mufti
Case details for

Austin v. Barnett Bank of South Florida, N.A.

Case Details

Full title:SYBIL AUSTIN, PETITIONER, v. BARNETT BANK OF SOUTH FLORIDA, N.A.…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District

Date published: Jul 10, 1985

Citations

472 So. 2d 830 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

Zanardi v. Zanardi

The petitioner claims, and we agree, that she is entitled to have the trial court conduct an in camera…

Westco v. Scott Lewis' Gardening

A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law in ordering production of confidential…