6 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 583a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Insured’s action against insurer — Discovery requests through which insured sought to discover nature of relationship between insurer, the medical records review company which schedules independent medical examinations, and the physician who conducted independent medical examination of insured — Type of discovery sought by insured is permissible — Insurer failed to demonstrate that it would suffer irreparable injury that cannot be remedied on appeal if it complies with discovery order entered by court — Petition for writ of certiorari dismissed
ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. SANDRA EDWARDS, Respondent. 9th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County. Case No. CI99-2332. Writ No. 99-18. June 16, 1999. Petition for Writ of Certiorari. Counsel: Rissman, Weisberg, Barrett, Hurt, Donahue & McLain, P.A., Stephanie Segalini, for Petitioner. The Law Office of Peter Shapiro, P.A., Peter A. Shapiro, for Respondent.
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
(PER CURIAM.) Petitioner, Allstate Indemnity Company (“Allstate”), seeks certiorari review of a discovery order rendered by the trial court. For the reasons expressed below, Allstate’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari is dismissed.
Respondent, Sandra Edwards, was injured as a result of two automobile accidents that occurred on or about January 10, 1998 and May 26, 1998. Edwards sought recovery of personal injury protection (“PIP”) benefits from Allstate as a result of her injury. Ultimately, Edwards filed a first party action against Allstate for PIP benefits. In response, Allstate claimed that the treatment was not reasonable, medically necessary, or related to the accidents at issue.
During discovery, Edwards propounded a First Request to Produce and First Set of Interrogatories to Allstate. Allstate objected to several requests and interrogatories on the ground that they were vague, overbroad, unduly burdensome and irrelevant. In support of its objections, Allstate filed an affidavit executed by Albert Fernandez, Front Line Process Expert for Allstate, dated December 21, 1998. The affidavit sought to explain the burdensome nature of responding to Edwards’ Interrogatories and Production Requests. The trial court judge, the Honorable Carolyn B. Freeman, overruled several of these objections on February 8, 1999. Thereafter, the Honorable Jerry L. Brewer, entered an order on Judge Freeman’s ruling on February 15, 1999.
On March 15, 1999, Allstate filed the instant Petition for Writ of Certiorari. An Order Directing Respondent to File a Response to the Petition for Writ of Certiorari was rendered on March 23, 1999. Edwards filed her Response to Petition for Writ of Certiorari on April 23, 1999.
It is well established that the essential prerequisite to granting a petition for writ of certiorari is action by the lower court which constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law that will cause material injury to the petitioner throughout the proceedings below and for which there is no adequate remedy on appeal. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla. 1987). “Orders granting discovery . . . have traditionally been reviewed by certiorari.” See Martin-Johnson, 509 So. 2d at 1099. However, certiorari review of orders granting discovery is “an `extraordinary remedy’ that should not be used to circumvent the interlocutory appeal rule which authorizes appeal from only a few types of non-final orders.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 24 Fla. L. Weekly S187, S189 (Fla. April 22, 1999); see Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, at 1098.
Through her discovery request, Edwards sought to discover the nature of the relationship between Nexucon, a company that reviews medical records, Dr. Guerriero, the physician that conducted an independent medical examination (“IME”) of Edwards, and Allstate by seeking certain records from Allstate. Allstate cites to Carrera v. Casas, 695 So. 2d 763 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), Elkins v. Syken, 672 So. 2d 517 (Fla. 1996), and LeJeune v. Aikin, 624 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), for the proposition that such discovery is untenable and violates the intent of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280.
The Florida Supreme Court recently ruled that such discovery is permissible from a party. See Allstate v. Boecher, 24 Fla. L. Weekly at S188 (“where the discovery sought is directed to a party about the extent of that party’s relationship with a particular expert, the balance of interests shifts in favor of allowing the pretrial discovery”). The court also found that:
The information sought here would reveal how often the expert testified on Allstate’s behalf and how much money the expert made from its relationship with Allstate. The information sought in this case does not just lead to the discovery of admissible information. The information requested is directly relevant to a party’s efforts to demonstrate to the jury the witness’s bias.
Id. Thus, the type of discovery sought by Edwards is permissible. Therefore, this Court finds that Allstate has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm.
Allstate also argues that it will suffer irreparable harm because the disclosure required by the trial court is unduly burdensome. Allstate presented a timely affidavit in support of its position that the discovery requested was unduly burdensome and has asserted that position in its petition for writ of certiorari. Thus, the issue before this Court is whether the allegedly burdensome nature of the discovery ordered warrants certiorari review. Initially, this Court must determine whether the trial court’s order caused Allstate an irreparable injury which cannot be remedied on appeal.1
In order to warrant certiorari review a trial court’s order must be a departure from the essential requirements of law that causes an irreparable injury. See Boecher, 24 Fla. L. Weekly at S189. “Cat out of the bag” discovery is an example of discovery that would cause irreparable injury. Discovery that is irrelevant does not automatically equate with irreparable harm. Id.
In this case, Allstate has been ordered to produce responsive documents for 1998 related to a doctor who performs independent medical examinations for Allstate in Orange County, Florida. Allstate has been ordered to produce responsive documents for 1998 related to the medical records review company that schedules those independent medical examinations. Allstate is also required to answer two interrogatories that request similar information for the last five years. This Court finds that Allstate has failed to demonstrate that it will suffer irreparable injury that cannot be remedied on appeal if it complies with the trial court’s order. Thus, this Court finds that certiorari review is not warranted in this case.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Petitioner, Allstate Indemnity Company’s, Petition for Writ of Certiorari is DISMISSED.
________
1Unlike this case, the court in Boecher did not consider whether the subject discovery request was unduly burdensome, because the court determined that issue was not before it. The court also declined to address that part of the Fourth District Court of Appeals’ opinion which found that the information requested could be easily “plucked from cyberspace.”
* * *
