17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 295a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 1704POLLInsurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Discovery — Depositions — Motion to depose medical provider’s attorney regarding attorney’s fees denied as “overkill”
MITCHELL R. POLLAK, M.D., P.A., (Victor Ethelbert, Patient), Plaintiff, vs. UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 05-007003 COCE (50). February 1, 2010. Peter B. Skolnik, Judge. Counsel: Andrew J. Weinstein, Weinstein & Associates, P.A., for Plaintiff. Fesner Petion, for Defendant.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION REGARDING ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on January 8, 2010, for hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and Defendant’s Motion to Compel, the Court having reviewed the Motion and the relevant portions of the Court file; heard argument; reviewed relevant legal authorities; and been sufficiently advised on the premises, the Court finds as follows:
Background
1. This case arises out of a claim for Personal Injury Protection benefits filed by the Plaintiff.
2. On or about October 5, 2009, a Final Judgment was entered in this matter in favor of the Plaintiff, thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of attorney’s fees and costs with interest.
3. On or about November 25, 2009, Counsel for the Defendant, UNITED AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (hereinafter “UNITED”), served Discovery including Defendant’s Attorney Fee Request for Produce and Defendant’s Attorney Fee Interrogatories.
4. In addition to the above discovery requests, Defendant requested to depose Plaintiff’s Counsel, Andrew J. Weinstein, regarding said attorney’s fees.
5. On December 2, 2009, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Deposition Regarding Attorney’s Fees and Costs.
6. On December 7, 2009, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Protective Order.
Conclusions of Law
7. This Defendant is well aware of Mr. Weinstein’s background, experience, and training, and to require counsel to respond to said deposition and discovery would be unnecessary and inappropriate.
8. UNITED has previously stipulated to the hourly rate Mr. Weinstein is claiming in this case and Defense Counsel has presented no case specific reason to take Mr. Weinstein’s deposition.
9. This Court agrees with Judge Herring’s opinion in, Ron Wechsel, D.C., Inc. v. Progressive Express Insurance Company, where Judge Herring denied defendant’s motion to compel deposition of plaintiff’s attorney and stated “. . .as to permit same would be Rambo-like overkill.” Ron Wechsel, D.C., Inc. v. Progressive Express Insurance Company, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 366a (17th Jud. Cir. Broward Cty., March 26, 2003).
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order is hereby GRANTED.
2. Defendant’s Motion to Compel Deposition Regarding Attorney’s Fees and Costs is hereby DENIED.
