Filing # 145925218 E-Filed 03/17/2022 02:54:11 PM
`
`IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE
`FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
`FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA
`
`CASE NO: 16-2022-SC-001756
`DIVISION: CC-B
`
`JAX SPINE & PAIN CENTER
`A/A/O RHONDA TAYLOR,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
`INSURANCE COMPANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`/
`
`DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST REQUEST TO PRODUCE
`
`COMES NOW,
`
`the alleged Defendant, GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
`
`INSURANCE COMPANY,byand through its undersigned counsel andfiles this its response to
`
`Plaintiff's First Request to Produce, as follows:
`
`1. All insurance policies that would insure to the benefit of Plaintiff, together with any
`declaration or coverage page and sworn statement of a corporate officer of Defendant
`attesting to the coverage and authenticity of the policy as required by Florida Statutes.
`
`RESPONSE:A certified copy of the policy of insuranceis attached.
`
`2. The entire Personal Injury Protection file maintained by Defendant or anyone on
`Defendant’s behalf with regard to Assignor, cover to cover, including original jackets and
`everything contained within thefile, including but not limitedto:
`a) All notations regarding notice of the accident;
`b) All telephone messagesto or from Defendant, or any of Defendant’s agents on
`Defendant’s behalf}
`c) All accident reports prepared by Defendant, any law enforcement agencies,
`Plaintiff, Assignor or your insured;
`d) All interoffice memoranda;
`e) All correspondence to or from anyone, including any insurance agencies, any
`doctors’ offices, any employers, any agencies hired to select doctors for
`
`Page 1 of 9
`
`ACCEPTED: DUVAL COUNTY, JODY PHILLIPS, CLERK, 03/19/2022 06:37:50 AM
`
`
`
`“compulsory/independent medical examinations” and any law enforcement
`agencies;
`f) Any and all Personal Injury Protection forms including Personal Injury
`Protection applications, medical report forms, employer verification forms,
`authorization forms and any other forms containedin said file; and,
`g) All records on file concerning the time expended or the costs expendedin the
`handling of any aspect of Plaintiff's claim.
`
`RESPONSE: Objection: overbroad, not limited in time or scope, over burdensome
`and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
`Additionally, the information seeks to invade the attorney/client and/or work product
`privilege and tradesecret.
`
`The scope of discovery is framed bythe issues raised in the pleadings. “Discovery in
`civil cases must be relevant to the subject matter of the case and must be admissible
`or reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.” “Litigants are not entitled
`to carte blanche discovery of irrelevant material." Tanchel v. Shoemaker, 928 So.2d
`440, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (quoting Residence Inn by Marriott v. Cecile Resort, Ltd.,
`822 So.2d 548, 550 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)). See Brooks v. Owens, 97 So. 2d 693, 699 (Fla.
`1957).
`
`Furthermore,it is axiomatic that information sought in discovery must relate to the
`issues involved in the litigation, as framedin all pleadings. Krypton v. MGM-Pathe
`Communications Co., 629 So. 2d 852, 854 (Fla. Ist DCA 1993). Traditionally,
`"discovery should be denied when it has been established that the information
`requested is neither relevant to any pending claim or defense norwill it lead to the
`discovery of admissible evidence." Tanchel v. Shoemaker, 928 So.2d 440, 442 (Fla. 5th
`DCA 2006) (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 95 (Fla. 1995); see also
`Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.280(b)(1) (providing that "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding
`any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action"
`(emphasis added)). Documents relating to the events or information after the alleged
`incident have been held to be immaterial when there has been no showing of relevance
`to the alleged incident. Tanchel, 928 So.2d at 442; Caterpillar Indus., Inc. v. Keskes,
`639 So.2d 1129, 1131 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Tampa Pipeline Corp. v. CF Indus., Inc.,
`693 So. 2d 580, 582 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (quashing discovery order ordering
`documents be produced which had no bearing on any issues in the case); Suburban
`Propane v. Estate of Pitcher, 564 So. 2d 1118, 1121 (Fla. Ist DCA 1990) (quashing
`discovery order allowing depositions that wereirrelevant to the only pending claim).
`
`Similarly, discovery should be denied “whenit has been affirmatively established that
`such discovery is neither relevant nor will
`lead to the discovery of relevant
`information.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 95 (Fla. 1995).
`
`The materials are either irrelevant to this first-party dispute that this case presents
`or are privileged work product. The Second District Court of Appeal appears to have
`adopted a fairly broad view of work product, extending it to materials ‘compiled in
`
`Page 2 of 9
`
`
`
`response to someevent which foreseeably could be madethebasis of a claim," rather
`than requiring the existence or threatof specific litigation. Anchor National Financial
`Services, Inc. v. Smeltz, 546 So. 2d 760 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). See State Farm Fire &
`Casualty Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012 (Fla.3d DCA 1995), and cases cited therein.
`Accordingto State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3" DCA
`1995):
`
`The respondent sued State Farm on a homeowner's policy for damages
`allegedly caused by hurricane Andrew and tropical storm Gordon.
`State Farm claimed that the home had sustained ordinary wear and
`tear which was not covered by the policy. In this proceeding for
`certiorari, we quash in its entirety an order of production upon the
`holdings that (a) State Farm's claim files, manuals, guidelines and
`documents concerning its claim handling procedures wereirrelevant to
`the first party dispute involved in this case, see Allstate Ins. Co. v.
`Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Fla. 1995); Fidelity & Cas. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v.
`Taylor, 525 So.2d 908, 909 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 528 So.2d
`1181 (Fla. 1988), disapproved on other grounds, Kujawa v. Manhattan
`Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 541 So.2d 1168 (Fla. 1989).
`
`According to State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 389 (Fla. 2°4 DCA
`2003):
`
`During discovery, the circuit court issued a wide-ranging orderto State
`Farm to produceits claim files, investigative reports, adjuster notes,
`underwriting files, company policies and manuals, training materials,
`certain personnel files, sales brochures and marketing materials,
`computer manuals for operating internal software and programs,
`details of rewards and bonus programs for employees, employee
`incentive and compensation programs,
`third-party programs and
`correspondence about sinkhole claims, its casualty claims manual and
`estimating manual, and minutes of meetings at which sinkhole claims
`were discussed. We quashtheorderinits entirety.
`
`Claimsandlitigation files are not subject to discovery. See State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
`v. Martin, 673 So.2d 518, 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Michigan Millers Mut. Ins. Co. v.
`Bourke, 581 So.2d at 1370; The Doctors Company v. James Randall Thomas a/k/a
`Randy Thomas, as Personal Representative ofthe Estate ofMildred Thomas, 41 Fla. L.
`Weekly D352b (2016)(“Such premature disclosure results in irreparable harm that
`cannot be remedied on plenary appeal.”); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., v. Premier
`Diagnostics, LLC, 41 Fla. L. Weekly D278a (Fla. 3d DCA 2016).
`
`Internal manuals are also protected from discovery. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v.
`Cook, 744 So.2d 567, 568 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)("State Farm's claimsandlitigation files
`are not subject to discovery until the bad faith claimsareripe ... internal manuals are
`also protected from discovery until and unless the bad faith claims are prosecuted.")
`
`Page 3 of 9
`
`
`
`(internal citations omitted). Florida courts have recognized that claim file materials,
`including internal claim notes or adjuster's notes, are not discoverable unless and
`until a claim for bad faith is at issue. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co. v. Hoy, 927 So. 2d 122, 124
`(Fla. 2d DCA 2006) ("Generally speaking, the contents of an insurer's accident
`investigation file constitute work product.)
`
`Otherwise, the following objections apply:
`
`a. Police reports, although not necessarily work product ordinarily or
`confidential, and thus in need of showing of necessity must be madein
`order to discover them.City of Tampa v Harold, 352 So. 2" 944 (Fla. 2"4
`DCA1977),
`Photographsandfiles prepared in response to an action that forcibly
`could be madethebasis of a claim or protected from discovery as work
`product Airocar, Inc. v Goldman, 474 So. 2"4 269 (Fla. 4" DCA 1985),
`information regarding measurements, diagrams,
`etc
`taken in
`anticipation of litigation or work product Florida East Coast Railway
`LLC y. Jones, 847 So. 2" 1118 (Fla. 1** DCA 2003,
`Generally photographsor films taken by or on behalf of a party and
`bearing upon the subject matter of the litigation are work product
`Waste Management, Inc. v Florida Power and Light Company, 571So. 2"4
`507 (Fla. 2" DCA 1990); Nationwide insurance Company v. Monroy
`276 So. 2"4 547 (Fla. 2"! DCA 1973),
`Documents, reports, and videotapes generated by investigators hired to
`investigate an accident are protected for discovery by work product
`Huet v. Tromp, 912 So. 2"4 336 (Fla. 5“ DCA 2005),
`Investigative reports are work product Federal Express Corporation v.
`Cantway, 778 So. 1052 (Fla. 4" DCA 2001),
`research is
`technical
`Investigative report
`involving scientific or
`protected from disclosure Proctor and Gamble Company v. Swilley, 462
`So. 2"4 1188 (Fla. 1 DCA 1985),
`Aninvestigator, who has been retained by a party, his attorney ortheir
`insurer to inquire into an accident anticipated to give rise to litigation
`is not required to producehis or her investigation and or report, claims
`file materials prepared by an insurance company generally are
`regarded as protected from discovery National Security Fire and
`Casualty Company v Dunn, 705 So. 2" 6058 (Fla. 5 DCA 1997), and
`State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v Martin, 673 So. 2"4 518 (Fla.
`5 DCA 1996), Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Camara DeComercio
`Latino Americana De Los Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2°4 250 (Fla. 3"
`DCA 2002),
`Aninsurers claimsfile including investigative reports, adjustors notes,
`underwriting files, company policies and manuals, training manuals,
`certain personnel files, sales brochures and marketing materials,
`computer manuals for operating internal software and programs,
`details over awards and bonus programs for employees, employee
`
`Page 4 of 9
`
`
`
`incentive and compensation programs, and third party programs and
`correspondence about claims, casualty claims manuals and estimating
`manuals, and minutes of meeting at which claims are discussedareall
`either irrelevant or privilege work product, State Farm Florida
`Insurance Company v Gallmon, 835 So. 2nd 389 (Fla. 2nd 2003), and
`State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v Romero, 22 Fla.
`L. Weekly Supp. 674a (2015),
`Work up andevaluation files prepared by an insurance companies
`claimsfile personal are privileged work product, General Accident Fire
`and Life Assurance Corporation, Limited v Golding, 436 So. 2™4 1108
`(Fla. 4DCA 1983),
`Claimsfile work productprivilege extends to independent investigators
`hired by aninsurer in assist in evaluating a claim American Reliance
`Insurance Company yv Rosemont Condominium Home Owners
`Association Inc., 671 So. 2"4 (Fla. 3" DCA 1996),
`. The insurers claim andlitigation files constitute work product and are
`protected from production. Facts known or opinionsheld by an expert
`who has been retained or especially employed in anticipation of
`litigation and whois not expected to be called as a witnessastrial is
`subject to protection as work product Carrero v Ingle Homes, Inc., 667
`So. 274 1011 (Fla. 4DCA 1996), Lift Systems Inc. vy Cosco Wholesale
`Corporation, 636 So. 2"4 569 (Fla. 3"! DCA 1994), Myromby and through
`Brock v Doctors General, Limited, 573 So. 2"* 34 (Fla. 4% DCA 1990),
`Even compelling a party to disclose the namesof any persons who have
`examined, evaluated, or reviewed a parties record and properly
`compels a party to divulge the name of experts consulted for trial but
`not intendedto be called to testify at trial is protected by work product
`privilege. Muldrow v State, 787 So. 2"4 159 (Fla. 2"¢ DCA 2001),
`. Generally speaking the contents of an insurers accident investigation of
`file constitutes work product GEICO General Insurance Company v
`Hoy, 927 So 24 122 (Fla. 24 DCA 2006), a liability insurance company
`can assert the attorney- client privilege for communications with its
`attorneys United Services Auto Association v Roth, 859 So. 2"4 1270
`(Fla. 4* DCA 2003), Nation Wide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v
`Hess, 814 So. 274 1240, 1243 (Fla. 5 DCA 2002)(protects from
`disclosureall letters to or from insurance companylawyers), Scottsdale
`Insurance Company v Camara De Comcerio Latino-America De Los
`Estados Unidos, Inc., 813 So. 2"! 250, 251 (Fla. 34 DCA 2002),
`. Photographs and measurementsof an accident scene taken by a party
`or their insurer shortly after an accident or work product Meric
`Engineering, Inc. v Small, 561 So. 2"4 1248, 1250 ( Fla 15* DCA 2003),
`adjusters reports made after an incident, accident or loss are protected
`by work product State Farm Fire and Casualty Company v Valido, 662
`So. 274 1012 (Fla. 3™ DCA 1995), American Reliance Insurance
`Company v Rosmont Condominium Home Owners Association, 671 So.
`2"4 250 (Fla. 34 DCA 1996).
`
`Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`Without waiving objection, Explanations of Benefits sent to Plaintiff, purported pre-
`suit Demandreceived from Plaintiff, Response to Plaintiff’s Demand, Crash Report
`and PIP Logare attached.
`
`Copies of any and all forms, correspondence, or reports which defendant or any of
`Defendant’s agents acting on Defendant’s behalf received from anyone concerning
`Assignor’s medical condition.
`
`RESPONSE: Objection, irrelevant, other than those involving Plaintiff’s claim.
`Without waiving objection, a copy of 1500/HCFAforms and medical records received
`from Plaintiff are attached.
`
`forms, notations, memoranda or information which Defendant
`. All correspondence,
`transmitted in any form whatsoever to any physician’s office or health care provider’s
`office concerning Assignor’s physical or mental condition.
`
`RESPONSE: Objection, irrelevant, other than those involving Plaintiff’s claim.
`Without waiving objection, correspondence sent from Defendant to Plaintiff is
`attached.
`
`. Any and all information bulletins Defendant received from the Florida Department of
`Insurance between January 1, 1990 and the present concerning the handling of Personal
`Injury Protection claims.
`
`RESPONSE: Objection, overbroad, over burdensomeand not reasonably calculated
`to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, the information seeks
`to invade the attorney/client and/or work product privilege and trade secret. The
`Defendantincorporates their objections as morefully set forth in response to Request
`#2 above.
`
`. Any andall surveillance reports, claims history reports or other investigative reports claims
`Defendant or anyone acting on Defendant’s behalf prepared with regard to Assignor.
`
`RESPONSE: Objection, overbroad, over burdensomeandnot reasonably calculated
`to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, the information seeks
`to invade the attorney/client and/or work product privilege and trade secret. The
`Defendant incorporates their objections as morefully set forth in response to Request
`#2 above.
`
`. Any andall surveillance films or photographs Defendant or anyone acting on Defendant’s
`behalf took of Assignor.
`
`RESPONSE: Objection, overbroad, over burdensomeand not reasonably calculated
`to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, the information seeks
`to invade the attorney/client and/or work product privilege and trade secret. The
`
`Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`Defendantincorporates their objections as morefully set forth in response to Request
`#2 above.
`
`An up-to-date Personal Injury Protection payout sheet (PIP log) on Assignor.
`
`RESPONSE:A copyof the PIP logis attached.
`
`Anyandall statements Defendant or anyone acting on Defendant’s behalf took of Assignor
`or any witnesses.
`
`RESPONSE: Objection, overbroad, over burdensomeandnot reasonably calculated
`to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, the information seeks
`to invade the attorney/client and/or work product privilege and trade secret. The
`Defendant incorporates their objections as morefully set forth in response to Request
`#2 above.
`
`Without waiving objection, none knownatthis time.
`
`10.
`
`All materials correspondence or documents received by Defendant or Defendants’ agents
`for the Assignor, his attorneys or his employers.
`
`RESPONSE: Objection, irrelevant, other than those involving Plaintiff’s claim.
`Without waiving objection, a copy of the 1500/HCFA forms, medical records and
`demandare attached hereto.
`
`11.
`
`All materials correspondence or documents received by Defendant or Defendant’s agents
`from any sourceprior to this lawsuit.
`
`RESPONSE: Objection, irrelevant, other than those involving Plaintiff’s claim.
`Without waiving objection, 1500/HCFA forms, medical records and demand are
`attached hereto.
`
`12.
`
`All documents supplied by Plaintiff or Assignor to Defendant prior to this suit regarding
`the car accident which is the subject of the Complaint.
`
`RESPONSE: Objection, irrelevant, other than those involving Plaintiff’s claim.
`Without waiving objection, 1500/HCFA forms, medical records and demand are
`attached hereto.
`
`13.
`
`All materials which you believe support your affirmative defenses.
`
`RESPONSE: The documents which support Defendant’s application of the statutory
`fee schedules have already been produced or are being produced in response to other
`requests, or are public records equally available to both parties.
`
`Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`14. All materials, reports, studies which you believe support your contention that the medical
`charges as outlined in the Complaint exceed the reasonable fee for these procedures in the
`region where the services were provided.
`
`RESPONSE: Objection, overbroad and burdensome. The information requestedis
`equally available to the Plaintiff as they are public laws or records to include:
`
`Fenn
`
`The Florida No-Fault Law
`Florida SB 2012
`First Coast Service Options: https://medicare.fcso.com/
`Medicare Portal: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Medicare.html
`Look Up:
`5. Medicare
`Portal
`to
`the
`Physician
`Fee
`Schedule
`https://www.cms.gov/apps/physician-fee-schedule/search/search-criteria.aspx
`6. Division of Worker’s Compensation Health Care Provider Reimbursem*nt
`Manuals:
`http://www.myfloridacfo.com/Division/WC/PublicationsFormsManualsReports/
`Manuals/
`
`Without waiving objection, the medicalbills at issue were paid properly in accordance
`with the policy of insurance applicable to this claim, and thus no additional amounts
`are due or owing. Defendant paid all amounts pursuant to the applicable policy of
`insurance,andPlaintiff agreed to these sums and accepted payment. Explanations of
`Reimbursem*ntpreviously sent to Plaintiff and a PIP log are attached.
`
`15.
`
`All photographs showing property damage to the motor vehicles involved in the car
`accident that is the subject of this claim (including the claimant vehicle and any other
`vehicle involved).
`
`RESPONSE: Objection, overbroad, over burdensomeandnot reasonably calculated
`to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Additionally, the information seeks
`to invade the attorney/client and/or work product privilege and trade secret. The
`Defendant incorporates their objections as morefully set forth in response to Request
`#2 above.
`
`Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFYthat a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been sent to Adam
`Saben, Esquire, Shuster & Saben, LLC, 10245 Centurion Parkway, Suite 305, Jacksonville, FL
`32256 by electronic mail to the designated email address: JaxPleadings@piplaw.com on March
`17, 2022.
`
`DUTTON LAW GROUP,PA
`1054 Kings Avenue
`Jacksonville, FL 32207-8312
`(904)421-6900
`Designated Service Addresses:
`service.CMS@duttonlawgroup.com
`service.JCR@duttonlawgroup.com
`Attomey for Defendant
`
`/s/ Christina M. Saad
`
`CHRISTINA M. SAAD, ESQUIRE
`Florida Bar No. 1010851
`JAMES C. RINAMAN,ITI, ESQUIRE
`Florida Bar No. 838047
`
`#50618
`
`Page 9 of 9
`
`
