Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Haskell Co. v. Ga. Pac. Corp.

Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

December 13, 1996, Filed

CASE NO. 96-2880


 [*297]  COBB, J.

Petitioner, The Haskell Company, seeks certiorari review of an order reopening the deposition of one of its corporate employees. The deponent admitted that during a recess he discussed his testimony with counsel.  [*298]  The trial court granted respondents' motion to reopen the deposition, so that respondents could examine the deponent regarding his discussion with counsel. The court found that this discussion was not protected by the attorney-client privilege.

] An order compelling disclosure of privileged communications is reviewable by certiorari. See Shell Oil Co. v. Par Four Partnership, 638 So. 2d 1050 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The attorney-client privilege in Florida as codified by statute [**2]  applies to the contents of confidential communications between a lawyer and a client made in the rendition of legal services which are not intended to be disclosed to third persons. See §§ 90.502(1) and (2), Fla. Stat. (1995). These confidential communications are not discoverable unless one of the statutory exceptions to the privilege is applicable. See § 90.502(4), Fla. Stat. (1995). When a privilege is facially apparent, the burden is on the party seeking disclosure to show that the privilege does not apply. See Shell Oil Co. v. Par Four Partnership, supra. 

] There is no recognized exception to the privilege for a communication between an attorney and client which occurs during a break in deposition. If a deponent changes his testimony after consulting with his attorney, the fact of the consultation may be brought out, but the substance of the communication generally is protected. See Feltner v. Internationale Nederlanden Bank, 622 So. 2d 123 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We recognize that the coaching of witnesses during depositions may obstruct the fact-finding purpose of discovery. We also recognize a trial court's authority to supervise the conduct of parties at [**3]  depositions, but that authority may not encroach upon the attorney-client privilege. We quash the trial court's order, which departs from the essential requirements of law.


Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

684 So. 2d 297 *; 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 12912 **; 21 Fla. L. Weekly D 2647

THE HASKELL COMPANY Petitioner, v. GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPORATION, etc., et al., Respondents.

Subsequent History:  [**1]  Released for Publication January 2, 1997.

Prior History: Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for Putnam County. Stephen L. Boyles, Judge.



deposition, attorney-client, deponent, confidential communication, consultation, disclosure, reopen

Business & Corporate Law, Management Duties & Liabilities, Fiduciary Duties, General Overview, Evidence, Privileges, Attorney-Client Privilege, Exceptions, Rights of Partners, Civil Procedure, Discovery, Privileged Communications, Appeals, Appellate Jurisdiction, Interlocutory Orders, Legal Ethics, Client Relations, Duties to Client, Duty of Confidentiality, Scope