12 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 155b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Objections to supplemental discovery are overruled where there is nothing in file to indicate that claimed trade secret privilege is applicable or that supplemental discovery is irrelevant — Objecting insurer should have filed privilege log and/or produced allegedly protected documents for in camera inspection
PILLAR DIAGNOSTICS, INC., as assignee of FRANCISCO COLMENARES, Plaintiff, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. CCO-03-6021, Division 71-PIP. August 11, 2003. Jerry L. Brewer, Judge. Counsel: Alexander Billias, Morgan, Colling & Gilbert, P.A., Orlando, for Plaintiff. Joseph R. Hutchinson, Reynolds & Stowell, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Defendant.
Cert. dismissed. 14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 124a
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER RESPONSES TO SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST TO PRODUCE AND BETTER ANSWERS TO SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES
THIS CAUSE having come before the Court on July 29, 2003 on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Better Responses to Supplemental Request to Produce, (certificate date July 8, 2003), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Better Answers to Supplemental Interrogatories, (certificate date July 8, 2003), and the Court having reviewed the file, having heard argument of counsel and being fully advised in the premises:
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. This personal injury protection lawsuit involves UCR reductions taken by Defendant on several medical bills that were submitted by Plaintiff.
2. On June 17, 2003, Plaintiff served its Supplemental Request to Produce and Supplemental Interrogatories on Defendant, whereby Plaintiff is seeking discovery regarding the computer system or database Defendant utilized to review the bills at issue in this case and the methods by which the bills were reviewed.
3. On June 30, 2003 Defendant served its Response to Supplemental Request to Produce, wherein Defendant made the following objection to each and every request in Plaintiff’s Supplemental Request to Produce:
Objection — requests items subject to and protected under the attorney-client and work product privileges, requests certain information that is subject to trade secret privilege and protected by copyright, irrelevant, over-broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, outside the scope of discovery permissible under F.R.Civ.P. 1.280, et seq. Further, Defendant will produce privilege log for materials responsive to request.
4. Also on June 30, 2003 Defendant served its Answers to Supplemental Interrogatories, wherein Defendant made the following objection to each and every interrogatory in Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatories:
Objection — requests items subject to and protected under the attorney-client and work product privileges, requests certain information that is subject to trade secret privilege and protected by copyright, irrelevant, over-broad, not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, outside the scope of discovery permissible under F.R.Civ.P. 1.280, et seq. Further, Defendant will produce privilege log for materials responsive to request.
5. Defendant has not filed a privilege log or produced to the Court any documents responsive to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Request to Produce.LAW AND ANALYSIS
The Court does hereby ORDER and ADJUDGE as follows:
6. Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Request to Produce are hereby OVERRULED.
7. Defendant’s objections to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatories are hereby OVERRULED.
8. There is nothing contained in the Court file to indicate that the trade secret privilege is applicable to Plaintiff’s supplemental discovery or that Plaintiff’s supplemental discovery is irrelevant.
9. Defendant should have filed a privilege log and/or produced the documents, which Defendant has asserted are protected by the trade secret privilege, to the Court for an in-camera inspection prior to this hearing.
10. Accordingly, Defendant shall serve its response to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Request to Produce and answers to Plaintiff’s Supplemental Interrogatories within twenty (20) days of the date of this hearing.
* * *
