dadelstein@gmail.com

954-361-4720

Call Us For Free Consultation

Search
 

3-Step Process to Determine Production of Document under Trade Secret Privilege

During the discovery phase of litigation, a party will serve a request for documents on the opposing party.  The request for documents will include numerous categories of documents. The responding party will then identify whether it will produce the documents or whether it will not due to a privilege or another legal objection. A hearing will then need to be conducted to determine the merits of the privilege or objection. One such privilege a party may raise is that the requested documents fall within the trade secret privilege.  Such documents would be itemized on a privilege log and would identify trade...

Continue reading

Appeal of Discovery Order — Not so Easy!

In litigation, there will be disputes as to the scope and perceived relevance of discovery (e.g., scope of document production, depositions, and interrogatory answers).  It may not occur in every case, but it will occur.  There is no such thing as discovery orders always going in your favor.  Not possible.  Some discovery orders entered against you are understandable.  Others lead to a certain amount of frustration.  And, others leave you with consternation such that you feel that you need to appeal based on the perceived prejudice.   The appeal of a discovery order, however, is through a petition for writ of...

Continue reading

Apex Doctrine to Prevent Deposition of High Ranking Official in Corporate Context

There is a doctrine referred to as the Apex doctrine to prevent the deposition of a high ranking official.  The Apex doctrine stands for the proposition that “[an] agency head should not be subject to deposition, over objection, unless and until the opposing parties have exhausted other discovery and can demonstrate that the agency head is uniquely able to provide relevant information which cannot be obtained from other sources.”  Suzuki Motor Corp. v. Winckler, 44 Fla.L.Weekly D2219a (Fla. 1stDCA 2019) (citation omitted).   Stated another way: “[A] party seeking to depose a . . . high-ranking governmental official must demonstrate the personal involvement of the official in a material...

Continue reading

Delay Tactics may Not Work to Avoid Dispositive Summary Judgment Ruling

Delay tactics do not always work to avoid a dispositive summary judgment ruling, particularly when the tactics have no justifiable basis.  And, frankly, delay tactics should not work as an intentional means to delay the inevitable.  This was discovered by a commercial condominium owner in Weisser Realty Group, Inc. v. Porto Vita Property Owners Association, Inc., 44 Fla. L. Weekly D1094a (Fla. 3d DCA 2019), where the trial court granted a foreclosure summary judgment against it.   In this case, a commercial condominium owner purchased a condominium unit in a condominium that had residential units and select commercial units. Residential units...

Continue reading

Writ of Certiorari to Remedy Pre-Trial Discovery Order

Sometimes, a trial court issues a pre-trial order on a discovery issue that a party claims causes it irreparable harm.   In this situation, the only basis to appeal the pre-trial discovery order is through a petition for writ of certiorari, as recently explained by the Second District Court of Appeal: A party seeking review of a pretrial discovery order must show that the trial court's order departed from the essential requirements of law and caused material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.  Generally, certiorari is not available to review orders...

Continue reading

Note on Discovery in Litigation

Here is a quick note on discovery in litigation (e.g., document requests, depositions, interrogatories). An objective of discovery is to discover information that is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. In other words, just because the discovery appears irrelevant does not necessarily mean that pursuing such discovery will not reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. By taking a more liberal approach to the legal discovery process, hopefully, some of the unfortunate gamesmanship that occurs during discovery is eliminated or reduced. In particular, parties should not be able to unilaterally dictate what they believe is relevant...

Continue reading
Contact Me Now

Prove YOUR Case!

Contact:

David Adelstein ♦

(954) 361-4720 ♦

dadelstein@gmail.com