13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1109a
Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Motions for protective orders regarding depositions of insurer’s attorneys and corporate representative with most knowledge of hiring attorneys are denied — Court recedes from prior ruling that attorney may be compensated for litigating question of reasonable fee
FLORIDA EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS KANG & ASSOCIATES, MD, PA as assignee of Ronald Phillips, Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 18th Judicial Circuit in and for Seminole County. Case No. 05-SC-1539. August 9, 2006. John R. Sloop, Judge. Counsel: Roy J. Smith, IV, Weiss Legal Group, Maitland, for Plaintiff. Richard Oliver Hale, IV, and Wendelyn J. Lane, Rutledge Bradford, Orlando, Co-Counsel for Plaintiff. Dale Gobel, de Beaubien, Knight, Simmons, Mantzaris & Neal, LLP, Orlando, for Defendant.
[Editor’s note: See also 13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1022a.]
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING DEPOSITION OF COUNSEL AND PLAINTIFF
This matter having come to be heard by the Court on “Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding Deposition of Counsel and Plaintiff” and after reviewing the pleadings, the Court file, and after hearing oral argument from counsel, this Court hereby finds as follows:
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order regarding the deposition of Richard Hale, Esquire, is hereby DENIED.
2. This Court retreats from its prior ruling that an attorney be compensated for time spent litigating the question of his reasonable fee.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order regarding the deposition of Roy Smith, Esquire, is hereby DENIED.
4. This Court retreats from its prior ruling that an attorney be compensated for time spent litigating the reasonableness of his fee.
5. Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order regarding the deposition of Plaintiff’s corporate representative with the most knowledge of hiring of attorneys for the prosecution of this matter, is hereby GRANTED.
6. Plaintiff’s counsel is not seeking a multiplier of its lodestar attorney’s fees.
* * *
