11 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 69c
Insurance — Attorney’s fees — Discovery — Depositions — Motions for protective order regarding depositions of insurer’s counsel and litigation adjuster are denied where deponents have or may have information beneficial to court in determining reasonable amount of attorney’s fees and costs and necessity of multiplier, to be used at attorney’s fees hearing — Motions for sanctions and to strike notices of depositions are denied
YATES CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATES, as Assignee of Keri-Marie Martin, Plaintiff, v. PROGRESSIVE CONSUMERS INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation authorized and doing business in the State of Florida, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County. Case No. 02-SC-002198-19z. September 17, 2003. Carmine M. Bravo, Judge. Counsel: Lee M. Jacobson, Law Offices of Michael B. Brehne, P.A., Maitland, for Plaintiff. George Milev, Kubicki, Draper, et al., for Defendant.
ORDER
THIS CAUSE, Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding the Deposition of George Milev, Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Michael Gimbert, Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions and Defendant’s Motion to Strike came on for hearing on September 3, 2003, before Judge Hitt and this Court having heard argument of counsel and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, Finds as follows:FACTS
1. The only issue remaining and in dispute is the amount of reasonable fees and costs to be awarded to Plaintiff’s counsel for its successful prosecution of this case.
2. In preparation for the pending Attorney’s Fee Hearing, Defendant seeks the depositions of the two Plaintiff’s attorney’s involved in this litigation.
3. In preparation for the pending Attorney’s Fee Hearing, Plaintiff seeks the deposition of the defense attorney assigned to this case and the Defendant’s “litigation adjuster” assigned to this case.
4. Defense counsel sought protective orders for the depositions of the defense counsel assigned to the case, George Milev, and the “litigation adjuster”, Michael Gimbert, or in the alternative, defense counsel has requested this Court to strike the Notices of Depositions of George Milev and Michael Gimbert, based upon the assertion that such depositional testimony is irrelevant to the issue of attorney’s fees.
5. Both George Milev and Michael Gimbert have or may have relevant information that may be beneficial in aiding the Court’s decision as to the necessity or amount of a multiplier.
6. A deposition seeking information that will be beneficial to the Court in determining the reasonable amount of fees and costs and the necessity of a multiplier, to be used at an attorney fee hearing, is within the scope of discovery as contemplated by Rule 1.280(b)(1).
Therefore, this Court ORDERS AND ADJUDGES:
1. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order with regards to the deposition of George Milev is hereby DENIED.
2. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order with regards to the deposition of Michael Gimbert is hereby DENIED.
3. Defendant’s Motion to Strike the Notices of Deposition of George Milev and Michael Gimbert, propounded by Plaintiff, is hereby DENIED.
4. Defendant’s Motion for Sanctions is hereby DENIED.
5. This Court will hear arguments at the attorney fee hearing to determine the amount of reasonable fees and costs Plaintiff incurred as a result of prevailing upon Defendant’s Motion for Protective Orders, as warranted under Rules 1.280(c) and 1.380(a)(4), Fl. R. Civ. P.
* * *
