9 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 635a
Insurance — Personal injury protection — Attorney’s fees — Discovery — Depositions — Motion to compel depositions in preparation for attorney’s fee hearing is denied where medical provider’s attorney is seeking fees for only 7.4 hours, and insurer’s attorney has cross-examined provider’s attorney about his background, experience and training at other fee hearings in past
RICHARD HULZER, D.C. as assignee for Gerda Guirano, Plaintiff, vs. U.S. SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. County Court, 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County. Case No. 02004399 (53). August 6, 2002. William W. Herring, Judge. Counsel: Cris E. Boyar, for Plaintiff. Adolfo Podrecca, for Defendant.Order Denying the Defendant’s Motion to Compel Depositions
This matter coming on to be heard on August 2, 2002, upon the Defendant’s Motion to Compel the deposition of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s attorney, and the Court having heard argument of counsel, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. The Plaintiff filed suit for PIP benefits. The parties settled the case before the pretrial conference.
2. The Defendant stipulated to the Plaintiff’s entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs.
3. The Plaintiff’s attorney filed a Motion for attorney’s fees and costs based on the settlement. The Plaintiff’s affidavit which was filed with the Court states the Plaintiff’s attorney is seeking 7.4 hours plus taxable costs.
4. The Defendant filed a Motion to Compel the deposition of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s attorney in preparation for a fee hearing. The plaintiff objected to these depositions arguing the depositions were being scheduled for harassment purposes only.
5. After hearing argument from both parties, the Court is hereby exercising its discretion and denying the Defendant’s Motion to take Depositions of the Plaintiff’s attorney and the Plaintiff for two reasons. First, the Plaintiff’s attorney is seeking a minimal amount of time. Second, the Defendant’s attorney has cross examined the Plaintiff’s attorney in the past at other fee hearings concerning the Plaintiff’s attorney background, experience and training.
* * *
