10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1001a
Civil procedure — Discovery — Insurance — Notes made by agent, servant and/or employee of defendant which would reflect or pertain to any statements made by plaintiff to that individual — Amount of bills paid by defendant’s insurance company — Defendant’s contention that records are maintained by separate department within defendant’s insurance company does not have bearing on this instant proceeding, and defendant is obligated to produce all documentation within its control that is otherwise responsive and not protected by privilege despite fact that other adjusters may have handled different aspects of plaintiff’s claim — Payments made by insurance company and evidence relied upon to support insurer’s less than full payment of bills
RICHARD LEE HADLEY, Plaintiff, vs. MERCURY CASUALTY COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Defendant. Circuit Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 03-CA-5818. September 19, 2003. Donald E. Grincewicz, Judge. Counsel: Jeffrey M. Byrd, Jeffrey M. Byrd, P.A., Orlando. Paul A. Bernardini, Jr., Clearwater.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER ANSWERS TO DISCOVERY
This cause came to be heard before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Better Answers to Discovery on September 4, 2003 and 11:00 a.m., and the Court having considered the testimony and arguments presented, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that
1. Plaintiff’s Motion GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
2. The Court finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to any notes made by any agent, servant and/or employee of the Defendant which would reflect or pertain to any statements made by Plaintiff to said agent, servant and/or employee of the Defendant. The Plaintiff is entitled to know of the existence and content of any statement that could potentially be used against him in this legal proceeding, and Defendant is required to produce such statements within ten days of the date of the September 3, 2003 hearing.
3. The Court further has considered the Defendant’s objection to producing materials relating to the amount of bills paid by the Defendant’s insurance company. Although the Defendant contends that those records are maintained by a separate department within the Defendant’s insurance company, the fact nevertheless remains that the Defendant is the party to this lawsuit and any “Chinese walls” erected by the Defendant internally have no bearing on this legal proceeding. Accordingly, the Defendant is compelled to respond to Requests to Produce numbers 10, 14, l5, 17, 18, and 19, all of which relate to documents which may be in the possession of other representatives of the Defendant. The Defendant is obligated to produce all documentation within the Defendant’s control that is otherwise responsive to the Plaintiff’s discovery that is not otherwise protected by privilege despite the fact that other adjusters may have handled different aspects of the Plaintiff’s claim.
4. Similarly, the Court orders the Defendant to provide better responses to Interrogatories number 12, 13, and 14 relating to payments made by the Defendant’s insurance company, and any evidence relied upon to support less than full payment of such bills by the Defendant. The foregoing discovery shall be responded to within the next 10 days.
5. The Court sustains the Defendant’s Objections to Request to Produce number 20; therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion with respect to this issue alone is DENIED.
* * *
