12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 501a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Privilege — Work product — After in camera review, court finds that work product privilege applies only to snapshot computer generated notes and close file notes
DAVID A. NAPOLI, D.C. d/b/a NAPOLI CHIROPRACTICE CENTER (a/a/o Reynaldo Raudales), Plaintiff, vs. GRANADA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 03-5292 COCE 53. February 11, 2005. Robert W. Lee, Judge. Counsel: Laura M. Watson, Fort Lauderdale. Jeffrey F. Antell, Miami.
ORDER ON IN CAMERA REVIEW AFTER DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF’SREQUEST FOR PRODUCTION
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant’s having filed its Notice of Transmittal, and the Court’s having reviewed the Notice and entire Court file; reviewed the relevant legal authorities, and been sufficiently advised in the premises, finds as follows:
On January 31, 2005, this Court entered its Order directing that Defendant transmit to the Court under seal those documents responsive to the Plaintiff’s Request for Production, numbers 6, 10 and 22. The Defendant had objected to the production of these documents based on work product privilege. The Court has now received those documents under seal, consisting of 17 pages not including the transmittal sheet and privilege log.
The Court analyzes the Plaintiff’s request and the Defendant’s objection pursuant to the standards set forth in Cotton States Mutual Ins. Co. v. Turtle Reef Associates, Inc., 444 So.2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). In Cotton States, the appellate court held that a work product privilege only comes into play if a document is prepared in contemplation of litigation. In making this decision, the “mere likelihood [of litigation] does not satisfy this qualification.” Id. at 596. The work product privilege does not apply to “preliminary” research done by an insurance company “in the ordinary course of business.” Id.
Against this backdrop, the Court has reviewed the documents transmitted under seal. The Court finds that the work product privilege applies only to two items: (1) the “snapshot” computer generated notes from January 21, 2003 through April 8, 2003, and (2) the close file notes dated March 27, 2003.
Notice is hereby given that the Court intends to transmit the remaining documents to Plaintiff’s counsel after a period of ten (10) days, unless during that time the Defendant seeks certiorari relief. The two documents referred to above will remain under seal.
To the Defendant’s copy of this Order only, the Court is attaching a copy of the documents it intends to provide to Plaintiff after the expiration of ten days. The Plaintiff is being sent a copy of this Order only, without attachments.
* * *
