22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 1088c
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2209AXCEInsurance — Discovery — Depositions — Notice seeking depositions by naming witnesses and/or describing their position or function impermissibly commingled notice methods allowed by rule 1.310(a) for taking depositions of natural persons and rule 1.310(b)(6) for taking depositions of corporate representatives — Depositions will be reset with representatives designated by insurer, not medical provider — Provider may take deposition of any natural person without designating topics
AXCESS DIAGNOSTICS, ETC., Plaintiff, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL, ETC., Defendant. County Court, 12th Judicial Circuit in and for Manatee County. Case No. 2013-SC-3964. September 19, 2014. Charles Sniffen, Judge. Counsel: Russel Lazega, Florida Advocates, Dania Beach, for Plaintiff. Edwin V. Valen, Oxendine and Oxendine, P.A., Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant’s motion to for protective order, and the Court having reviewed the motion and court file, heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully informed, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The motion is GRANTED in part.
2. The Court finds that Plaintiff filed a notice of taking deposition on June 10, 2014 which sought the depositions of several witnesses by either naming the witness and/or describing their position or function. For each witness the Plaintiff also designated a number of topics to be covered and documents be produced.
3. The Court finds that the Plaintiff’s notice impermissibly commingled the methods of notice allowed by Rules 1.310(a) and 1.310(b)(6), Fla. R. Civ. P. by naming specific individuals who are sought as corporate representatives of the Defendant and who are asked to testify regarding designated topics and produce documents in Defendant’s custody and control.
4. Within thirty (30) days of this order the parties shall confer and reset the deposition of the Defendant at a mutually agreeable date and time. At such time the Defendant, not Plaintiff, shall designate one or more appropriate representative(s) to testify on its behalf as to each of the matters on which examination was requested in Plaintiff’s June 10, 2014 notice, and to produce the documents requested therein.
5. The Court further finds that the Plaintiff is entitled to take the deposition of any natural person pursuant to Section 1.310(a); in such case, no designation of topics is necessary or appropriate. If the Plaintiff seeks documents from the named individual by service of a subpoena duces tecum, the designation of materials to be produced shall be included in the notice of taking deposition as required by rule.
* * *
