GREGORY ERN v. JANICE LOU SPRINGER and PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •        DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FOURTH DISTRICT
    GREGORY ERN,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    JANICE LOU SPRINGER and PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN INSURANCE
    COMPANY,
    Respondents.
    No. 4D20-2107
    [March 24, 2021]
    Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth
    Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Janet Croom, Judge; L.T. Case No.
    31-2019-CA-000815-XXXX.
    Joseph H. Graves and Christopher M. Rotunda of Graves Thomas
    Rotunda Injury Law Group, Vero Beach, for petitioner.
    Kansas R. Gooden of Boyd & Jenerette P.A., Miami, and Kevin D. Franz
    of Boyd & Jenerette P.A., Boca Raton, for respondent Janice Lou Springer.
    CONNER, J.
    Petitioner, plaintiff below in an automobile negligence action, seeks
    certiorari review of an order requiring production of his mental health
    records. We grant the petition and quash the order.
    The order permitted the production of the records without limitation or
    in camera inspection to ensure that only relevant information is disclosed
    connecting the mental health records either in substance or time to the
    claim at issue. This departs from the essential requirements of law. See
    Laforest v. Laforest, 
    284 So. 3d 1099
    , 1099-1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
    (citing Zarzaur v. Zarzaur, 
    213 So. 3d 1115
    , 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017));
    Brown v. Montanez, 
    90 So. 3d 982
    , 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); McEnany v.
    Ryan, 
    44 So. 3d 245
    , 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). We grant relief without
    prejudice for the trial court to conduct an in camera inspection to confirm
    that the records are relevant and timely as to the claim at issue. See
    Zarzaur, 
    213 So. 3d at 1120
     (“No documents may be disclosed to Husband
    or his counsel until after the trial court makes the required in-camera
    inspection to determine that every document disclosed is relevant, timely
    to the issue of Wife’s then-present fitness as a parent, and either not
    privileged or within a valid waiver of Wife’s privilege.”); McEnany, 
    44 So. 3d at
    247 .
    Petition granted, and order quashed with instructions.
    MAY and ARTAU, JJ., concur.
    *         *        *
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-2107

Filed Date: 3/24/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/24/2021