5 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 691b
Attorney’s fees — Insurance — Personal injury protection — Civil procedure — Discovery — Motion to compel answers to plaintiff’s attorney’s fees interrogatories, response to request for admissions, and production of documents granted — Motion to compel production of defendant’s attorney for deposition granted — Motion to strike defendant’s proposal for settlement of attorney’s fees and costs granted — Motion to strike plaintiff’s proposal for settlement of attorney’s fees and costs denied
EMILY BUTLER, Plaintiff, vs. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, Defendant. County Court in and for Polk County. Case No. 97-SP12-3922. May 29, 1998. Timothy Coon, Judge.
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STRIKE, AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
This cause came on to be heard on May 18, 1998, on Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Proposal for Settle- ment, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement and Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order. Plaintiff was represented by William J. Corda and Defendant was represented by David D. Neiser. The underlying claim by Plaintiff was for PIP benefits which have now been paid by Defendant. The only issue remaining is the amount of Plaintiff’s reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. The Court having reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement, Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel, Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement and Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order, and also having reviewed the authorities cited by the respective parties and argued by them including Judge James C. Hauser’s Attorney’s Fees In Florida, 2d Ed., Vol. I, Ch. 1, Pp. 23-25; Holcomb v. Fortune Insurance Company, 4 FLW Supp. 479 (County Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, July 26, 1996); Cruz v. Allstate Insurance Company, 5 FLW Supp. 303 (Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit, November 12, 1997); Wint v. North American Specialty Insurance Company, Inc. and State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, 3 FLW Supp. 133 (County Court of the 10th Judicial Circuit, Mar. 8, 1995); Rule 1.442 of the Florida Rules of Civil Proce- dure; and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is, therefore,
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. With respect to Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Fees Interrogatories Numbered 1 through 21 to Defendant, Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is denied and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted. Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with Answers to these Interrogatories by 5:00 p.m. on May 22, 1998.
2. With respect to Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Fees Request for Admissions Numbered 1 through 27, Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order is denied and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted. Defendant shall provide Plaintiff with responses to Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Fees Request for Admissions by 5:00 p.m. on May 22, 1998.
3. With respect to Plaintiff’s Attorney’s Fees Request to Produce requesting documents in Categories Numbered 1 through 5, Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is denied and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted. Defendant shall produce the documents requested in Categories Numbered 1 through 5 to Plaintiff by 5:00 p.m. on May 22, 1998.
4. With respect to Plaintiff’s Second Attorney’s Fees Request to Produce requesting documents in Categories Numbered 1 through 10, with the exception of Category No. 10 which was withdrawn by Plaintiff, Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is denied and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted. Defendant shall produce the documents requested in Categories Numbered 1 through 9 to Plaintiff by 5:00 p.m. on May 22, 1998.
5. With respect to the deposition of Defendant’s attorney David Neiser noticed by Plaintiff for May 27, 1998, Defendant’s Motion for Protective Order is denied and Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel is granted. Defendant shall produce its attorney David Neiser for his deposition on May 27, 1998, as noticed by the Plaintiff.
6. Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant’s Proposal for Settlement of attorney’s fees and costs is granted and said Proposal is hereby stricken.
7. Defendant’s Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Proposal for Settlement of attorney’s fees and costs is denied.
* * *
