13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 636a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Documents — Privilege — Work product — Amended privilege log that simply refers to PIP routing sheet and 17 entries of adjuster notes failed to meet specificity and detail requirements of rule 1.280(b)(5) — In camera inspection of materials claimed to be privileged leads to conclusion that insurer could have provided more specific log regarding adjuster’s notes but that no more specificity is required as to routing sheet — Court finds that all but two of adjuster’s notes were prepared in ordinary course of business and not in anticipation of litigation, all but two notes are excluded from work product privilege and must be produced to medical provider
LONI H. SATTERFIELD, D.C., P.A., (Darius Pinder, Patient), Plaintiff, vs. OCEAN HARBOR CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. CONO 03-000153 (70). March 23, 2006. Steven P. Deluca, Judge. Counsel: Andrew J. Weinstein, Weinstein & Associates, P.A., Coral Springs, for Plaintiff. Albert E. Moon, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DEEM DEFENDANT’S PRIVILEGE OBJECTIONS WAIVED AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO FLA. R. CIV. P. 1.380
THIS CAUSE, having come before the undersigned for hearing on March 17, 2006, upon the Plaintiff’s Motion to Deem Defendant’s Privilege Objections Waived and Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs Pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.380, and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and having been otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereupon
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The above-styled cause of action arises out of a claim for unpaid personal injury protection benefits filed by the Plaintiff.
2. On May 6, 2003, Plaintiff propounded its Request for Production.
3. On or about May 22, 2003, Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s Request for Production.
4. On September 13, 2004, Defendant filed Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s First Request to Produce.
5. Plaintiff filed its Motion to Compel Better Answers to Plaintiff’s Request to Produce dated June 2004.
6. This Court entered an Order on Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel stating that “Defendant shall file an Amended Privilege Log within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.” The Order was dated October 21, 2004.
7. The Amended Privilege Log filed by the Defendant fails to meet the specificity and detail requirements of Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(5), see also TIG Ins. Corp. of Am. v. Johnson, 799 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001), The Omega Consulting Group, Inc. v. Templeton, 805 So.2d 1058, (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), Bankers Security Insurance Company v. Symons, 889 So.2d 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004), and Century Business Credit Corporation v. Fitness Innovations and Technologies, Inc., 906 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
8. In Bankers, the Court stated that, “The rule requires adequate identification of each document. This usually includes, at a minimum, sender, recipient, title or type, date and subject matter.”
9. The Defendant’s Amended Privilege Log simply refers to a pip routing sheet and 17 entries of adjuster notes.
10. Despite the foregoing, this Court agreed to permit the Defendant another opportunity to provide a more specific and detailed privilege log in compliance with Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280 and the above-referenced case law. At the hearing on this Motion, defense counsel declined the Court’s offer and indicated that he did not believe he would be able to provide a more specific and detailed privilege log as he felt the one previously provided was adequate.
11. Per the request of the Defendant, this Court conducted an in-camera inspection of the materials claimed to be privileged.
12. This Court has carefully reviewed the adjuster notes and finds that the Defendant could have provided a more specific privilege log. No further specificity is required for the pip routing sheet.
13. This Court also finds that all but the last 2 entries of adjuster notes were prepared in the ordinary course of business and not in anticipation of litigation. See Cotton States Mutual Company v. Turtle Reef Associates, 444 So.2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Accordingly, these entries are excluded from work-product privilege and the Defendant shall turn them over to the Plaintiff within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.
14. The Court defers ruling on Plaintiff’s Motion for Attorney Fees and Costs Pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.380.
* * *
