14 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 187a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Interrogatories — Insurer’s objection to interrogatory, which inquires into factual basis for each request for admissions not unequivocally admitted by insurer on grounds that interrogatory seeks disclosure of opinion and also seeks to have insurer prepare provider’s case, is legally insufficient, groundless and improper under rule 1.340(b) — Further, interrogatory that does not seek mental impressions, conclusions or legal theories of counsel, but only seeks opinion of party is not objectionable — Motion to compel granted
MITCHELL R. POLLAK, M.D., P.A., (Ethelbert Victor, Patient), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. COCE 05-007003 (50). December 22, 2006. Peter B. Skolnik, Judge. Counsel: Andrew J. Weinstein, Weinstein & Associates, P.A., Coral Springs, for Plaintiff. Monica D. Barnes, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL BETTER ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF’S INTERROGATORIES
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on December 12, 2006 for hearing of Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Better Answers to Plaintiff’s First Interrogatories regarding Defendant’s response to Interrogatory #14; the Court having reviewed the Motion and entire Court file; heard arguments; reviewed relevant legal authorities; and been sufficiently advised in the premises, the Court finds as follows:
Background:
1. The instant case arises out of a claim for unpaid personal injury protection benefits.
2. The Plaintiff propounded its First Interrogatories to Defendant on May 13, 2005. Defendant did not submit its Responses until August 22, 2006, well over one year later.
3. Plaintiff’s Interrogatory #14 states as follows:
Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions was filed on or about May 13, 2005. If you failed to admit unequivocally any of the Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, please state with particularity for each instance:
a. All facts, opinions, or other sources of information supporting or contributing to your denial or qualified admission of that Request for Admission, including the full name, job description or designation, last known address and last known telephone number of each person known to you as having knowledge of such facts, opinions, or other information, and the description and location of each document known to you as referring to those facts, opinions, or other information.
b. If rather than deny said Request for Admission, you professed inability to admit or deny due to a lack of knowledge, please describe, including details of time and place, each inquiry you made toward ascertaining whether that Request for Admission should be admitted or denied, other than inquiries made to the attorney for the purpose of obtaining legal advice regarding this lawsuit.
4. In addition to being untimely, Defendant’s response to interrogatory #14 was improper under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(b). Defendant submitted an amended response to Interrogatory #14 on October 11, 2006, which states in relevant part, “Objection, opinion work product consisting of the attorney’s mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or theories concerning the client’s case.” However, Defendant’s amendment still did not cure the defect and Defendant’s response once again does not comply with Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.340(b), in that it does not address the question posed.
Conclusions of Law:
5. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(b) clearly and unequivocally states, “An interrogatory otherwise proper is not objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or calls for a conclusion. . .” Id. Defendant’s objection that the “interrogatory seeks disclosure of opinion and discovering party is seeking to have defendant prepare Plaintiff’s case is legally insufficient, groundless and improper under the applicable rule.
6. Moreover, an interrogatory that does not seek mental impressions, conclusions or legal theories of counsel, but only seeks the opinion of a party is not objectionable pursuant to Rule 1.340(b). Dickinson v. Wells, 454 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Interrogatory #14 merely seeks the opinion of Defendant’s agent and in no way seeks opinions of counsel. As a result, the objection in paragraph 14 of Defendant’s Answer to interrogatories is improper.
7. The burden of proving the validity of objections is upon the objecting party. Charles Sales Corp v. Rovenger, 88 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 1956); Carson v. City of Fort Lauderdale, 173 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). This burden is not satisfied by blanket objections such as the foregoing. See Carson at745.
8. Accordingly, in responding to Interrogatory #14, Defendant is hereby required to provide a complete response and a factual basis for each of Plaintiff’s Request For Admissions that was not unequivocally admitted. Defendant has 21 days to produce its response to Interrogatory #14 in compliance with both this order and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340(b).
9. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(2) states in pertinent part: “. . .if a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 1.340 . . . the discovering party may move for an order compelling an answer, or a designation, or an order compelling inspection.”
10. Florida Rule of Civil procedure 1.380 also provides an evasive or incomplete answer shall be treated as a failure to answer, and if the motion is granted, and unless good cause is shown the court shall require the party whose conduct necessitated the motion to pay to the moving party the reasonable expense incurred in obtaining the order that may include attorney fees.
11. Plaintiff’s attorney is entitled to attorney fees for 2 hours in the amount of $700.00 ($350.00 per hour) for the reasonable expenses incurred in connection with this motion.
