22 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 470a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2204SHCHInsurance — Personal injury protection — Discovery — Depositions — Where deposition testimony of insurer’s corporate representative will have no bearing on whether demand letter satisfied statutory condition precedent, and all other issues in case will be moot if insurer prevails on motion for summary judgment based on defective demand letter, all depositions are postponed until after resolution of demand letter issue
RIVERVIEW FAMILY CHIROPRACTIC CENTER, PA., a Florida Corporation, (assignee of Chapman, Sherri), Plaintiff, vs. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 13th Judicial Circuit in and for Hillsborough County. Case No. 12-CC-28390. November 3, 2014. Honorable Gaston Fernandez, Judge. Counsel: William Moon, for Plaintiff. Jarod L. Gilbert, for Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTIONFOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
THIS CAUSE having come before this Court on October 15, 2014 on Defendant’s Motion for a Protective Order as to Plaintiff’s Notice of Taking Deposition of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and this Court having heard arguments of counsel and being otherwise fully advised, finds the following:
Riverview Family Chiropractic Center, P.A. (“Plaintiff’) has brought this breach of contract action against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Defendant”) for Personal Injury Protection (“PIP”) benefits under an insurance policy providing such benefits to Sherri Chapman (“Insured”). Defendant has denied the material allegations in Plaintiff’s Complaint and has asserted its affirmative defenses which include an assertion that Plaintiff has failed to comply with Fla. Stat. §627.736(10).
At hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order, counsel for Defendant first noted that a hearing is currently scheduled on “Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Invalid Pre-Suit Demand)” for November 10, 2014. It is Defendant’s position that said motion involves a legal issue only. As such, counsel for Defendant argued that the issue of whether Plaintiff’s purported pre-suit demand complied with Florida law should be resolved prior to any depositions being conducted. Counsel for Plaintiff countered by arguing that testimony of Defendant’s representative is relevant to determine whether the purported demand letter satisfied Fla. Stat. §627.736(10). In fact, Plaintiff’s position was essentially that an insurer’s comprehension of a purported demand letter would have relevancy on the issue of compliance. This Court disagrees.Analysis
In general, parties may obtain discovery regarding any non-privileged matter so long as it is relevant. Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1). However, discovery may be unnecessary when the basic facts are not at issue and the whole dispute involves a legal question. See Hurley v. Werly, 203 So.2d 530 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1967) (holding that a party should not be involuntarily deposed when a “dispute involves an essentially legal question and where the basic facts are not in issue”). The issue of whether Plaintiff’s purported pre-suit demand complies with Fla. Stat. §627.736(10) is just that — a legal issue. See, e.g., Stephen Bond v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co., 15 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 820a (Fla. 4th Jud. Cir. Cty. Ct. 2008).
In this case, the deposition testimony of Defendant’s representative will have no bearing as to whether Plaintiff’s purported pre-suit demand is deemed to comply with Fla. Stat. §627.736(10). As such, a deposition of Defendant’s representative will do nothing to further Plaintiff’s position on that issue. Counsel for Defendant has correctly pointed out that if Defendant prevails on its Motion for Summary Judgment then all subsequent issues would be moot as this case would be concluded. Furthermore, Defendant has already stipulated that if Defendant does not prevail at hearing on its Motion for Summary Judgment, then Plaintiff would be entitled to conduct a deposition. Lastly, Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(e) governs the sequence and timing of discovery, and by its very own terms, contains two factors that apply to this discovery issue: 1) convenience of the parties, and 2) interests of justice. Here, it makes no logical sense to inconvenience either party with potentially unnecessary depositions. Furthermore, the interests of justice lead this Court to hold that any and all depositions should be postponed until the legal issue presented in this case has been resolved. It is therefore:
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:
1. Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is granted to the extent that all depositions shall be postponed until after the hearing on Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Invalid Pre-Suit Demand).
2. All further arguments contained within Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order are moot at the present time.
* * *
