13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 472a
Insurance — Discovery — Depositions — Objections — Sanctions — Where insurer’s counsel made speaking objections at deposition, rather than making objections as to form, insurer is ordered to pay attorney’s fees and costs of motion for sanctions — Objections based on attorney-client privilege and work product privilege were appropriate
AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Plaintiff, v. SCOTT DRUMMOND and DAVID AUSLANDER, Defendants. Circuit Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 04-009957, Division B. February 20, 2006. Charlene E. Honeywell, Judge. Counsel: Douglas Fraley, for Plaintiff. Timothy A. Patrick, Timothy A. Patrick, P.A., Tampa; and Dominic Fariello, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S SECOND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS
THIS CAUSE having come on for a ruling before the Court on November 10, 2005 on Defendant’s Second Motion for Sanctions. Present before the court were Defendant Scott Drummond, Defendants’ counsel, Timothy A. Patrick, Esquire and Plaintiff’s counsel, Douglas Fraley, Esquire. The Court, after having accepted testimony and evidence, and hearing argument of counsel and review of the file, makes the following findings.
It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
(1) Defendants filed its Second Motions for Sanctions dealing with the continued deposition of Steven DeSalvo taken on July 28, 2005. Defendants moved for sanctions based upon their arguments that counsel for the Plaintiff made speaking objections and, otherwise, failed to comply with rules regarding discovery depositions.
(2) The court allowed the parties an opportunity to provide a transcript of the deposition with the highlighted provisions they contend are contrary to the Rules of Procedure, in terms of conduct of counsel at depositions. The court also allowed Plaintiff’s counsel an opportunity to respond upon receipt of the deposition transcript.
(3) The court received a response from Plaintiff’s counsel dated September 28, 2005 addressing the various objections raised by Defendant’s counsel. The court then received a letter from Defendant’s counsel dated September 30, 2005 objecting that Plaintiff’s counsel response is untimely.
(4) The court has considered Mr. Fraley’s letter dated September 28, 2005 and has overruled the Defendant’s objection thereto.
(5) The court has reviewed the deposition transcript and finds that portions of Mr. Fraley’s conduct at the deposition were inappropriate and inconsistent with the Rules of Procedure.
(6) There was an indication on pages 18 and 19 where Mr. Fraley, rather than making objections as to form, which is appropriate for deposition, continued to make additional objections, such that they would be classified as speaking objections.
(7) There were a number of objections based upon attorney/client privilege or work/product privilege, which the court finds appropriate. The court notes that you do have to make the objection specifically and then advise the client or deponent not to answer.
(8) The Defendant’s Second Motion for Sanctions is HEREBY GRANTED. The Plaintiff shall pay the reasonable attorney’s fees and costs associated with this motion. The court reserves as to the amount, which shall be addressed at a subsequent hearing. [Editor’s note: See 14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 52b.]
* * *
