fbpx

Case Search

Please select a category.

ST. AUGUSTINE PHYSICIANS ASSOCIATES, as Assignee for FAYE KNIGHT, Plaintiff, vs. MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, a Florida Insurance Company, Defendant.

13 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 713b

Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Medical provider is entitled to depose insurer’s counsel regarding attorney’s fees — Depositions are relevant and material to issues surrounding amount of fees and costs to be awarded to provider — Insurer is ordered to produce documents relating to time spent and costs incurred by insurer’s counsel

ST. AUGUSTINE PHYSICIANS ASSOCIATES, as Assignee for FAYE KNIGHT, Plaintiff, vs. MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY OF FLORIDA, a Florida Insurance Company, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2005-SC-3963-XXXX-MA, Division M. February 2, 2006. R.A. Green, Judge. Counsel: Joseph V. Camerlengo and R. Brian Boyd, Camerlengo & Brockwell, P.L., Jacksonville, for Plaintiff. Matthew S. Brown, for Defendant.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND GRANTING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES

This cause came to be heard at hearing on January 30, 2006 upon Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order and Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Discovery Responses, and the Court, having reviewed the matter, heard the arguments of counsel, reviewed the file and being advised of the premises the Court makes the following

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This PIP lawsuit was filed by the Plaintiff seeking No-Fault benefits.

2. After filing of the lawsuit, the parties resolved the underlying benefits, therefore the only remaining issues in the above styled cause are the amounts of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded to Plaintiffs counsel.

3. Both parties propounded written discovery regarding attorney’s fee issues.

4. On December 9, 2005, Plaintiff propounded Plaintiff’s Request to Produce to Defendant requesting, among other things, Defendant’s time sheets, costs and any other documents that reflect the number of hours or costs Defense counsel expended in this action.

5. On December 29, 2005, Defendant propounded its attorney fee discovery to Plaintiff.

6. On January 4, 2005, Defendant objected to portions of Plaintiff’s Request for Production regarding, without limitation, Defense counsel’s time sheets, costs and any other documents that reflect the number of hours or costs Defense counsel expended in this action. Defendant’s response contained a 1 page attached letter.

7. Accordingly, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel seeking, without limitation, Defense counsel’s time sheets, costs and any other documents that reflect the number of hours or costs Defense counsel expended in this action.

8. On January 23, 2006, Plaintiff timely provided Defendant with discovery responses including, but not limited to, Plaintiff’s time sheets, and copies of costs incurred.

9. Defendant scheduled the video deposition of Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff’s expert, by video, in this matter regarding attorney’s fees.

10. Defendant advised the Court at the January 30, 2006 hearing that the depositions of Plaintiff’s counsel and Plaintiff’s expert will not be by video.

11. Plaintiff scheduled the deposition of Defendant’s counsel and Defendant’s expert in this matter regarding attorney’s fees.

12. Defendant objected to the depositions of Defense counsel as irrelevant and immaterial. Accordingly, Defendant filed a Motion for Protective order seeking to prevent the depositions of Defendant’s counsel.

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

ORDER

1. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is DENIED. Plaintiff is entitled to depose Defense counsel as said depositions are relevant and material to the issues surrounding the amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded to Plaintiff.

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is GRANTED IN PART. The time spent and the costs incurred by defense counsel are relevant and material to the issues surrounding the amount of attorney’s fees and costs to be awarded to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendant shall produce the documents requested in Plaintiff’s Request to Produce paragraph #3 by February 8, 2006.

3. The parties agreed that the depositions will not be videotaped.

* * *

Skip to content