TRIAL COURT DEPARTED FROM ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS OF LAW BY ORDERING DEFENDANT TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS THAT DEFENDANT CLAIMED WERE PRIVILEGED, WITHOUT SETTING FORTH ITS REASONS FOR REJECTING THE DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO DISCOVERY, OR CONDUCTING AN IN CAMERA REVIEW

Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. v. Jackman, 50 Fla. L. Weekly D639 (Fla. 2nd DCA Mar. 19, 2025):

The defendant hospital filed a writ for a petition of certiorari, arguing that the trial court improperly compelled it to produce documents in response to the plaintiff’s discovery requests, notwithstanding its objections for vagueness, overbreadth, violation of statutory confidentiality of employee information, peer review and quality assurance program privileges, and attorney-client and work product privileges.

The trial judge rejected the defendant’s contentions without explanation and disregarded its assertion that it was entitled to a hearing on the discovery dispute. The hospital moved for reconsideration arguing that the circuit court violated the hospital’s right to due process by entering the orders without a hearing. The trial court also denied that motion without a hearing or explanation.

The appellate court made clear that it was not addressing the hospital’s objections based on vagueness, overbreadth, or relevance.

However, in addressing matters involving attorney-client privilege, work product privilege or other objections where privileges allegedly apply, a trial court needs to address whether the claimed privileges do apply and should often conduct an in-camera review of the disputed materials, so the appellate court is not left to guess about the ruling.

In keeping with other Second District precedent, the court held that the lower court’s failure to provide due process and findings to demonstrate its consideration of the privilege issues, warranted certiorari relief.