13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1086b
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Motion for protective order for insurer’s corporate representative with most knowledge of procedure reports denied despite insurer’s claims that reports will not be utilized in case and information is proprietary, trade secret and work product
PHYSICIANS INJURY CARE CENTER, INC., f/u/b/o JAMES CATON and PHYSICIANS INJURY CARE CENTER, INC., f/u/b/o ROBIN CATON, Plaintiffs, vs. PROGRESSIVE EXPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. 2003-CC-16255. August 11, 2006. Carolyn B. Freeman, Judge. Counsel: Roy J. Smith, IV, Weiss Legal Group, Maitland; Rutledge Bradford, Orlando; and Robert Melton, Orlando, for Plaintiff. Rachel P. Ray, Hengber, Goldstein & Ray, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, Co-Counsel; and Karen M. Walker, Rissman, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (KEITH BENEFIEL)
This matter came for hearing before the Court on April 20, 2006, regarding Defendant’s Motion For Protective Order (Keith Benefiel). Plaintiff has requested the deposition of the corporate representative with the most knowledge of “procedure reports”. Plaintiff asserts that the information is relevant and at the very least will lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Defendant has filed its Motion For Protective Order asserting that the “procedure report” will not be utilized in this case; that the information is proprietary and trade secret; work product; requires Defendant to produce a document not in existence; requiring substantial time to verify or explain; and it will provide confidential business practices of other providers. Subsequently, at the hearing, Defendant suggested that Plaintiff use the deposition of Mr. Benefiel in another case.
Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:
1. That the Defendant’s Motion For Protective Order (Keith Benefiel) is denied.
2. That the parties will coordinate a date for the scheduling of the deposition of the corporate representative with the most knowledge as to the particular issue.
* * *
