22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 385a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2203FAULInsurance — Discovery — Depositions — Motion to compel depositions of multiple employees of insurer is granted — No merit to insurer’s arguments that it should be allowed to produce only one employee for deposition because manner in which insurer operates results in single employee having all information other employees could offer and because insurer is overburdened with discovery requests
AXIS CHIROPRACTIC & REHAB CENTER, INC., a Florida Corporation (a/a/o Tina Faulkner), Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County, Civil Division. Case No. 14-CC-983, Division U. September 26, 2014. Frances M. Perrone, Judge. Counsel: William Moon, Florida Advocates, and Russel M. Lazega, Dania Beach, Dania Beach, for Plaintiff. Robert H. Oxendine, Oxendine & Oxendine, Tampa, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONTO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS
The instant case was filed January 14, 2014 claiming a breach of contract and damages. Plaintiff alleges bills were submitted to the Defendant for $10,273.00. Plaintiff, through the instant suit, claims Defendant owes Plaintiff $7,304.00 plus statutory penalties, interest, and certified mailing costs. Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Depositions on July 23, 2014. Attached to the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff provided copies of letters sent to the Defendant on May 5, 2014 and May 27, 2014 wherein Plaintiff seeks to coordinate depositions. A Notice of Hearing on the Motion to Compel was filed on July 21, 2014 noticing the hearing for September 23, 2014. A hearing was conducted on September 23, 2014 and attended by counsel for both parties.
Plaintiff seeks to depose: the adjuster who responded to the demand letter or if no longer employed by Defendant, the Claims Supervisor; Sue George, Claims Handler (at the time the claim was filed) or if no longer employed by Defendant, the Claims Supervisor; Claims Handler (claim handler currently assigned to the file); Debby Fuller, liaison to Mitchell International, Inc.; Dan Merrigan, Claims Supervisor; and Jeff Mercado, Demands Recipient.
Defendant offered for the court’s review a large stack of requests for deposition submitted by Plaintiff to Defendant on various cases. Defendant offered as a defense the manner in which State Farm handles claims and indicated the deposition of the adjuster would be sufficient because the adjuster would have all the information the other individuals sought to be deposed could offer.
Turning to the Rules and case law, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310 (b)(1) states:
A party desiring to take the deposition of any party upon oral examination shall give reasonable notice in writing to every other party to the action. The notice shall state the time and place for taking the deposition and the name and address of each person to be examined, if known, and, if the name is not known, a general description sufficient to identify the person or the particular class or group to which the person belongs. If a subpoena duces tecum is to be served on the person to be examined, the designation of the materials to be produced under the subpoena shall be attached to or included in the notice.
Both parties admitted, subsequent to the letters, no efforts were made to coordinate any depositions. Defendant’s counsel did not contact the Plaintiff and Plaintiff did not follow up with any phone calls or emails to coordinate any of the depositions. Additional communication between the parties may have accomplished the goal of completing discovery.
Appellate courts have stated, “the trial court has the authority to regulate as well as to prevent the taking of depositions, but when this authority is exercised it should be only upon a showing of good cause.” Orlando Sports Stadium, Inc. v. Sentinel Star Company, 316 So. 2d 607, 610 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).
“Discovery in civil cases must be relevant to the subject matter of the case and must be admissible or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.” Hess Spinal & Medical Centers of Lakeland, P.L. v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 21 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 938a (10th Cir. Polk County May 2, 2014) citing Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. American Educational Enterprises, LLC, 99 So. 3d 450, 457 (Fla. 2012) [37 Fla. L. Weekly S589a]. “The concept of relevancy has a much wider application in the discovery context than in the context of admissible evidence at trial.” Id.
“The trial court in treating discovery matters has wide discretion which the appellate court will not ordinarily disturb.” Cricket Club, Inc. v. Basso, 384 So. 2d 908, 910 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). Though Defendant asserts the information sought by the Plaintiff may be obtained through the deposition of the adjuster assigned to the file, that deposition was not coordinated and has not taken place. The Defendant has also not asserted the information sought by Plaintiff was provided through interrogatories or production of other documents. See Id. Therefore the Plaintiff may engage in discovery as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
In the Hess case, Plaintiff asserted the deposition of Dr. Hess would unduly burden and inconvenience Dr. Hess. The court found this assertion lacked any legal merit. “Plaintiff sued Defendant. The law does not allow a business’ owner to avoid having his deposition taken simply because it is inconvenient.” Hess citing Plantation-Simon Inc., et al. v. Bahloul, 596 So. 2d 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).
Similarly, in the instant case, the court cannot base a decision on Defendant’s argument of how State Farm operates and their firm being overburdened by Plaintiff’s discovery requests. So long as the parties are operating within the statutes and rules set forth by the Florida Legislature and the Florida Supreme Court, a business’ standard operating procedures may not take precedent.
ORDERED, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Depositions is GRANTED.
Defendant shall provide deposition dates within ten (10) days of this order and depositions shall occur within ninety (90) days. The Court reserves ruling on attorney’s fees for the necessity of this motion as no evidence was presented regarding awarding of fees.
* * *
