| Classification |
Original Proceedings - Circuit Civil - Certiorari
|
| Court |
4th District Court of Appeal
|
| Originating Court |
Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County
502018CA007103
|
Parties
| Name |
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
|
| Role |
Petitioner
|
| Status |
Active
|
| Representations |
Alyssa Reiter
|
|
| Name |
TIMOTHY MURPHY INC
|
| Role |
Respondent
|
| Status |
Active
|
|
| Name |
STEVEN SIMS PLLC
|
| Role |
Respondent
|
| Status |
Active
|
| Representations |
Robert C. Okon, Neil Semple, Luis A. Botero, Michele K. Feinzig
|
|
| Name |
Hon. Scott Ryan Kerner
|
| Role |
Judge/Judicial Officer
|
| Status |
Active
|
|
| Name |
Clerk - Palm Beach
|
| Role |
Lower Tribunal Clerk
|
| Status |
Active
|
|
Docket Entries
| Docket Date |
2020-05-20
|
| Type |
Order
|
| Subtype |
Order on Miscellaneous Motion
|
| Description |
Grant Miscellaneous Motion ~ ORDERED, upon consideration of petitioner’s April 8, 2020 motion for clarification and April 28, 2020 motion to correct scrivener’s error and respondent’s response to the motions, that the motions are granted, and the order issued on March 25, 2020 is corrected to read in its entirety as follows: Upon consideration of the responses by the parties to the February 5, 2020 order to show cause, the Court determines that several of the questions framed in the petition as being sought in discovery do not accurately reflect the actual deposition questions at issue. However, it does appear from the transcripts that some questions seek work product information because the questions ask why certain allegations in the answer and affirmative defenses are stated a certain way. Therefore, ORDERED that the petition is granted in part and denied in part. The petition is granted to the extent that the trial court order under review can be viewed as allowing a lay witness to explain why certain wording is used in the answer and affirmative defenses. Such questions are construed to be veiled attempts to obtain the thought process of the attorney drafting of pleading. The petition is denied as to questions which clearly seek the facts in support of an allegation in the answer and affirmative defenses.LEVINE, C.J., CONNER and KLINGENSMITH JJ., concur.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2020-04-28
|
| Type |
Motions Other
|
| Subtype |
Miscellaneous Motion
|
| Description |
Miscellaneous Motion ~ MOTION TO CORRECT SCRIVENER'S ERROR IN APRIL 27, 2020 ORDER
|
| On Behalf Of |
Steven Sims
|
|
| Docket Date |
2020-04-27
|
| Type |
Order
|
| Subtype |
Order on Motion For Clarification
|
| Description |
Grant Clarification ~ ORDERED, upon consideration of petitioner’s April 8, 2020 motion for clarification and respondent’s response to the motion, that the motion is granted, and the order issued on March 25, 2020 is corrected to read in its entirety as follows: Upon consideration of the responses by the parties to the February 5, 2020 order to show cause, the Court determines that several of the questions framed in the petition as being sought in discovery do not accurately reflect the actual deposition questions at issue. However, it does appear from the transcripts that some questions seek work product information because the questions ask why certain allegations in the answer and affirmative defenses are stated a certain way. Therefore, ORDERED that the petition is granted in part and denied in part. The petition is granted to the extent the trial court order under review can be viewed as allowing a lay witness to explain why certain wording is used in the answer and affirmative defenses. Such questions are construed to be veiled attempts to obtain the thought process of the attorney drafting of pleading. The petition is denied as to questions which clearly seek the facts in support of an allegation in the complaint.LEVINE, C.J. CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2020-04-23
|
| Type |
Response
|
| Subtype |
Response
|
| Description |
Response ~ TO PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
|
| On Behalf Of |
Steven Sims
|
|
| Docket Date |
2020-04-08
|
| Type |
Post-Disposition Motions
|
| Subtype |
Motion For Clarification
|
| Description |
Motion for Clarification
|
| On Behalf Of |
Progressive American Insurance Company
|
|
| Docket Date |
2020-03-25
|
| Type |
Disposition
|
| Subtype |
Granted in Part/Denied in Part
|
| Description |
Granted in Part/Denied in Part - Order by Judge
|
|
| Docket Date |
2020-03-25
|
| Type |
Disposition by Order
|
| Subtype |
Granted in Part/Denied in Part
|
| Description |
ORD-Grant in Part/Deny in Part ~ Upon consideration of the responses by the parties to the February 5, 2020 order to show cause, the Court determines that several of the questions framed in the petition as being sought in discovery do not accurate reflect the actual deposition questions at issue. However, it does appear from the transcripts that some questions seek work product information because the questions ask why certain allegations in the complaint are stated a certain way. Therefore, ORDERED that the petition is granted in part and denied in part. The petition is granted to the extent the trial court order under review can be viewed as allowing a lay witness to explain why certain wording is used in the complaint. Such questions are construed to be veiled attempts to obtain the thought process of the attorney drafting the complaint. The petition is denied as to questions which clearly seek the facts in support of an allegation in the complaint.LEVINE, C.J., CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2020-03-04
|
| Type |
Response
|
| Subtype |
Reply to Response
|
| Description |
Reply to Response
|
| On Behalf Of |
Progressive American Insurance Company
|
|
| Docket Date |
2020-02-25
|
| Type |
Response
|
| Subtype |
Response
|
| Description |
Response to Order to Show Cause
|
| On Behalf Of |
Steven Sims
|
|
| Docket Date |
2020-02-25
|
| Type |
Notice
|
| Subtype |
Notice of Appearance
|
| Description |
Notice of Appearance
|
| On Behalf Of |
Steven Sims
|
|
| Docket Date |
2020-02-25
|
| Type |
Record
|
| Subtype |
Appendix to Response
|
| Description |
Appendix to Response
|
| On Behalf Of |
Steven Sims
|
|
| Docket Date |
2020-02-05
|
| Type |
Order
|
| Subtype |
Show Cause re Petition
|
| Description |
ORD-Writs Show Cause with Reply ~ ORDERED that, within twenty (20) days of this order, Respondents shall file a response and show cause why the petition should not be granted as to the questions numbered 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10 in the petition. Respondents shall address whether these questions seek opinion work product (i.e., the attorney’s mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, and theories). Petitioner may file a reply within ten (10) days of the response.
|
|
| Docket Date |
2020-01-24
|
| Type |
Letter
|
| Subtype |
Acknowledgment Letter
|
| Description |
Writ of Certiorari / Acknowledgment letter
|
|
| Docket Date |
2020-01-23
|
| Type |
Misc. Events
|
| Subtype |
Case Filing Fee Paid through Portal
|
| Description |
Case Filing Fee Paid Through Portal
|
|
| Docket Date |
2020-01-23
|
| Type |
Petition
|
| Subtype |
Petition Certiorari
|
| Description |
Petition for Certiorari Filed ~ **FILING FEE PAID THROUGH PORTAL**
|
| On Behalf Of |
Progressive American Insurance Company
|
|
| Docket Date |
2020-01-23
|
| Type |
Record
|
| Subtype |
Appendix to Petition
|
| Description |
Appendix to Petition ~ **FILING FEE PAID THROUGH PORTAL**
|
|
|
