23 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 552a
Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2306JOHNInsurance — Discovery — Depositions — Motion to compel deposition of adjustor who has assumed duties of original adjuster, who is no longer employed by insurer, is granted where deposition appears to be reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence, and there is no evidence of bad faith in seeking deposition or any indication that deposition would harass or annoy insurer
NEUROLOGY PARTNERS, P.A. a/a/o PEGGY JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. ASSURANCE AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 4th Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County. Case No. 16-2015-SC-001917. September 16, 2015. Roberto A. Arias, Judge. Counsel: D. Scott Craig, Jacksonville, for Plaintiff. Kara K. Cosse, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’SMOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITION
This cause came to be heard upon Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition of Scott Mesick, Defendant’s adjustor with most knowledge of the claim. Both parties were represented by counsel. Mr. Mesick is no longer employed by Defendant, and his duties for all matters relating to this claim were assumed by John Swindell, who is currently employed by Defendant. Therefore, Plaintiff sought to compel the deposition of John Swindell, Defendant’s current representative.
Defendant argued that the requested deposition would not lead to the discovery of admissible evidence relevant to this case, nor specifically to Defendant’s pending Motion for Summary Judgment. Defendant argued that its Motion for Summary Judgment contained only legal issues, with the exception of the evidence used to support John Swindell’s Affidavit. It was Defendant’s position that because Plaintiff did not dispute the factual sufficiency of the documentation authenticated by the affidavit prior to the hearing, requiring a deposition of Mr. Swindell would be fruitless because there is no factual dispute. Therefore, Defendant argued that good faith discovery is not pending. Defendant argued that if Plaintiff was permitted to conduct the deposition, Defendant would suffer an undue burden and annoyance. Plaintiff argued that prior to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment being heard, Plaintiff should be permitted to conduct reasonable discovery, including the deposition of Defendant’s Representative. Defendant has filed the Affidavit of John Swindell in Support of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(1) provides that a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, so long as that discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. This Court finds that the deposition requested by Plaintiff does appear to be reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Furthermore, this Court finds no evidence of bad faith on Plaintiff’s part in seeking discovery, nor any indication that Plaintiff’s deposition would harass or annoy the Defendant.
It is this Court’s position that discovery is very broad pursuant to Rule 1.280(b)(1), Fla. R. Civ. P., and the deposition should be allowed. Accordingly, this Court is unable to agree with Defendant that Plaintiff is unreasonable in its determination that it requires the deposition in order to address Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
It is, therefore, ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Deposition is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff shall conduct the deposition at Defendant’s location, as requested.
