CopyCited 2 times | Published | District Court, N.D. Florida | 2013 WL 5952096, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160287
...and that Camil’s clients have not consented to the disclosure of the information requested. Doe. 4 at 2. Camil argues that the subpoenas should be quashed because production would violate the private investigator privilege set forth in Fla. Stat. § 493.6119 (2012) (section 493.6119) and because the requests subject Camil to an undue burden. 1 In support, Camil relies on the plain language of section 493.6119; Florida Division of Licensing (Division) Legal Opinion 97-10; several opinions from the Florida Commission on Ethics (Commission), CEO’s 78-82, 80-73, 82-6, 82-36, 84-111, and 96-16; and a 1995 discovery order entered by a circuit court judge that may have been referred to in Legal Opinion 97-10....
...§ 4749.13). 7 (Itskin did not involve a request for documents from a non-party.). Based upon the foregoing, the Court is not persuaded that there is a federal common law private investigator privilege. The Court also rejects Camil’s argument that section 493.6119(1) should be construed to create a private investigator/elient privilege as a matter of comity....
...81, 87-88 (N.D.Ga.1979) (declining to apply Georgia’s accountant privilege in a case “based almost totally on the federal securities laws”). Even if the Court were inclined to decide the issue, which it is not, neither party cites any Florida case law evaluating section 493.6119(1)....
...r deposition concerning confidential information obtained in the course of an investigation. Id. The Division referred to a recent order entered by a Florida circuit court judge who “equated the prohibition of releasing confidential information in Section 493.6119, to a ‘privilege’ like the attorney-client privilege” and that “‘a subpoena is insufficient to override the privilege provided in Florida Statute 493.6119’ and refused to order the private investigator to reveal the results of his investigation via testimony or production of documents because of the ‘privilege’ contained in Section 493.6119, Florida Statutes.” Id. 8 The Division opined that a licensed private investigator who is served with a subpoena “should file a motion with the court to quash the subpoena based on the confidentiality requirement contained in Section 493.6119.” The Division further stated that “[i]f the judge orders you to testify, you may then testify without the division pursuing disciplinary action....
...The judge’s order may also be appealed.” Also, “[t]he division’s concern is that you, as a licensed professional, take the action required to protect your client and the information in your file unless you are ordered by a court to divulge that information.” The Division did not opine that section 493.6119 creates a private investigator-client privilege....
...rovisions outside of the Code of Ethics.” Id. Aside from Judge McDonald’s discovery order, which is not binding precedent, see generally Fieselman v. State,
566 So.2d 768, 770 (Fla.1990), there is no decisional case law in Florida declaring that section
493.6119(1) creates a private investigator-client privilege, akin to the attorney-client privilege or otherwise. 3. Relevancy and Reasonableness of the Subpoenas Camil asserts that section
493.6119(1) creates a blanket private investigator-client privilege that shields Camil from producing any of the requested documents and communications and from appearing at a deposition to answer any questions relating to the documents production request or otherwise....
...Camil provided the Court with a 1995 discovery order from Circuit Judge Robert McDonald who ruled that a private investigator was not required "to bring records, tapes, photos of surveillance done at and on [one of the parties], including surveillance.” Doc. 4-5, Exhibit 5. Judge McDonald concluded that section 493.6119 granted the private investigator a valid privilege; that a subpoena was insufficient to override the privilege provided in section 493.6119; and that the private investigator did not have to reveal any of the results of his investigation "because of the privilege provided in said Statute." Id....
