destruction privilege in Florida

2026See id. "[T]he discovery of information that is protected by a privilege 'may reasonably cause material injury of an irreparable nature' [because] there is 'no remedy for the destruction of the privilege available on direct appeal.' " Lender Processing Servs., Inc. v. Arch Ins., 183 So. 3d 1052, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (first quoting Allstate Ins. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995); and then quoting Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)).3 As to whether the trial court's order departs from the essential requirements of law, Kesler argues

2022See Harborside Healthcare, LLC v. Jacobson, 222 So. 3d 612, 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("Certiorari relief is . . . appropriate in cases which allow discovery 7 of privileged information because once such information is disclosed, there is 'no remedy for the destruction of the privilege available on direct appeal.' " (quoting Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006))).

2019An order that compels discovery of privileged information departs from the essential requirements of law because once such "information is disclosed, there is no remedy for the destruction of the privilege available on direct appeal." Estate of Stephens v. Galen Health Care, Inc. , 911 So. 2d 277 , 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage , 509 So. 2d 1097 , 1099 (Fla. 1987) ).

2019An order that compels discovery of privileged information departs from the essential requirements of law because once such "information is disclosed, there is no remedy for the destruction of the privilege available on direct appeal." Estate of Stephens v. Galen Health Care, Inc. , 911 So. 2d 277 , 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage , 509 So. 2d 1097 , 1099 (Fla. 1987) ).

2019An order that compels discovery of privileged information departs from the essential requirements of law because once such "information is disclosed, there is no remedy for the destruction of the privilege available on direct appeal." Estate of Stephens v. Galen Health Care, Inc. , 911 So. 2d 277 , 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage , 509 So. 2d 1097 , 1099 (Fla. 1987) ).

2019An order that compels discovery of privileged information departs from the essential requirements of law because once such "information is disclosed, there is no remedy for the destruction of the privilege available on direct appeal." Estate of Stephens v. Galen Health Care, Inc. , 911 So. 2d 277 , 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citing Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage , 509 So. 2d 1097 , 1099 (Fla. 1987) ).

2026See id. "[T]he discovery of information that is protected by a privilege 'may reasonably cause material injury of an irreparable nature' [because] there is 'no remedy for the destruction of the privilege available on direct appeal.' " Lender Processing Servs., Inc. v. Arch Ins., 183 So. 3d 1052, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (first quoting Allstate Ins. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995); and then quoting Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)).3 As to whether the trial court's order departs from the essential requirements of law, Kesler argues

2015Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995) (citation omitted).,, Certiorari is appropriate in cases which allow discovery of privileged information because once such information is disclosed, there is “no remedy for the destruction of the privilege available on direct appeal.” Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A, 940 So.2d 504, 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

2022See Harborside Healthcare, LLC v. Jacobson, 222 So. 3d 612, 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) ("Certiorari relief is . . . appropriate in cases which allow discovery 7 of privileged information because once such information is disclosed, there is 'no remedy for the destruction of the privilege available on direct appeal.' " (quoting Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006))).

2019Certiorari review is appropriate in cases permitting the discovery of privileged information because "there is 'no remedy for the destruction of the privilege available on direct appeal.' " -2- Harborside Healthcare, LLC v. Jacobson, 222 So. 3d 612, 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (quoting Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)).

2026See id. "[T]he discovery of information that is protected by a privilege 'may reasonably cause material injury of an irreparable nature' [because] there is 'no remedy for the destruction of the privilege available on direct appeal.' " Lender Processing Servs., Inc. v. Arch Ins., 183 So. 3d 1052, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (first quoting Allstate Ins. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995); and then quoting Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)).3 As to whether the trial court's order departs from the essential requirements of law, Kesler argues

2026See id. "[T]he discovery of information that is protected by a privilege 'may reasonably cause material injury of an irreparable nature' [because] there is 'no remedy for the destruction of the privilege available on direct appeal.' " Lender Processing Servs., Inc. v. Arch Ins., 183 So. 3d 1052, 1058 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) (first quoting Allstate Ins. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995); and then quoting Coates v. Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A., 940 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)).3 As to whether the trial court's order departs from the essential requirements of law, Kesler argues

2022Allstate points out that because Connolly works as Allstate's in-house counsel, any documents in his personnel file containing legal advice or analysis are covered by attorney-client privilege.2 Allstate further avers that both Connolly and Brogan—the adjuster who handled the bad faith claim—prepared documents containing their mental impressions regarding the bad faith claim that constitute protected work product.3 The trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law by entering the order compelling production without conducting an in-camera review of the documents at issue or e

2017The same is true of production of discovery implicating privacy rights, Root, 132 So.3d at 869 , requiring disclosure of trade secrets or other proprietary information, Bright House Networks, 129 So.3d at 505 , and requiring production of documents subject to peer review privilege, Beverly Enters.-Fla., Inc. v. Ives, 832 So.2d 161, 164 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002). 4 *616 Moreover, it may be a departure from the essential requirements of the law when the trial court requires production of documents—without explanation—despite objections that statutory protections apply.

2015As we have explained, “[I]t appears that if there has been a departure from the essential requirements of law regarding either alleged privilege [attorney-client or work-product], the harm is indeed irreparable.” Lacaretta Rest. v. Zepeda, 115 So.3d 1091, 1092-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013).

2006This is because once privileged information is disclosed, there is no remedy for the destruction of the privilege available on direct appeal." Estate of Stephens v. Galen Health Care, Inc., 911 So.2d 277, 279 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (citations omitted); see also Robichaud v. Kennedy, 711 So.2d 186, 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) ("Certiorari is the appropriate avenue to challenge a trial court order directing the disclosure of communications presumptively covered by the attorney-client privilege.").

1994See State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986).