Preview
Filing # 77266824 E-Filed 08/30/2018 03:28:42 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND
FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 2017-CA-007417-O
MARIA ARIAS,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
___________________________________/
DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO
PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM
OF DEFENDANT’S FIELD ADJUSTER PURSUANT TO
RULE 1.310 (b)(6)
Defendant, UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY, INC. (“UNIVERSAL”), by and
through undersigned counsel hereby moves this Court for a Protective Order pursuant to Florida
Rule of Civil Procedure §1.280(c) as to the deposition of its field adjuster, and in support thereof
states as follows:
1. This matter arises from an alleged water loss reported as occurring on February 7,
2017 at the Plaintiff’s property located at 4422 Sebastian Way, Orlando, Florida 32808 (the
“Property”) which at the time was insured by UNIVERSAL under policy of insurance number
592-823-324.
2. Plaintiff subsequently filed this lawsuit for breach of contract.
3. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Defendant’s Field
Adjuster, Miguel Huertas, to take place on November 14, 2018 (attached as Exhibit “A”).
4. The Notice states that the deponent is to bring the entire claim file for the subject
claim. See Exhibit “A”.
5. UNIVERSAL seeks to limit the scope of discovery to the relevant facts about the
claim made in this litigation and seeks an order prohibiting the production of materials in
UNIVERSAL’s claim file, as well as all materials listed in the subpoenas, because production is
not supported under the law.
6. UNIVERSAL’s specific objections and supporting arguments are set forth in its
memorandum of law as follows:
MEMORANDUM OF LAW
7. UNIVERSAL objects to and seeks a protective order as to the overly broad scope
of the Plaintiff’s inquiry and production of the documents which may be requested at the
upcoming deposition. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 1.280(c)(4) provides that a party
may seek an order from the Court “that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of
the discovery be limited to certain matters.” In addition, parties to an action may obtain
discovery of any matter not privileged that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action
and “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Allstate
Insurance Company v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla 1995). UNIVERSAL objects to the
scope of inquiry to the extent it exceeds the permissible inquiry permitted in a first party action
of breach of contract.
A. Relevance Objection
8. Prior to its assertion of work product privilege and/or attorney client privilege,
UNIVERSAL properly asserts relevance objections regarding the scope of the deposition and its
relevance objections regarding any documents which Plaintiff may request be produced at the
deposition. Specifically, inquiries into information or documents which are maintained within
UNIVERSAL’s claim file are irrelevant to disputes concerning property coverage. Relevance is
broader in the discovery context than in the trial context and that a party is permitted to
discovery relevant evidence that is not admissible by may lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. F.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(3). However, Florida Court’s have continually held that
documents contained within the claim file are irrelevant to a dispute concerning property
coverage. Kujawa v. Manhattan National Life Ins. Co., 541 So. 2d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 1980); see
also State Farm v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
9. “Where the issue of coverage is still unresolved at the time of the insurer’s
objection to the request for discovery of its claim file, the trial court departs from the essential
requirements of law in overruling the insurer’s objections.” State Farm Florida Insurance
Company v. Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); citing to Superior Ins. Co. v.
Holden, 642 So. 2d 1139, 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see also Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v.
Mastrominas, 6 so. 3d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also State Farm Automobile Ins. Co.
v. Tranchese, 49 So. 3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)(holding discovery of an insurer’s claim
file or the insurer’s business practices regarding the handling of claims is not subject to
discovery until the obligation to provide coverage and damages has been determined). See also
State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), which holds that
“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… claims, its casualty claims manual and estimating manual, and
minutes of meetings at which… claims were discussed were either irrelevant to the first-party
dispute that this case presents or are privileged work product.” See State Farm Fire & Casualty
Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
10. “Further, requiring the disclosure of claim file materials during the litigation of
coverage issues would result in irreparable harm that cannot be adequately addressed on appeal.”
Id. If Plaintiff is permitted to elicit testimony regarding or discover files contained within the
claim file during an action for coverage, UNIVERSAL will suffer an irreparable harm which
cannot be adequately remedied on appeal.
B. Privilege Objection
11. UNIVERSAL further objects to questions regarding and/or production of
documents which are afforded additional protection under the work product privilege as the
information sought is maintained in the claim file. “Generally, an insurer’s claim and
litigation files constitute work product and are protected from production. The analysis
differs however, when an insurance company is sued for bad faith.” Allstate Indemnity Co. v.
Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005) (emphasis added). Therefore, any inquiry into the insurer’s
claim file is protected by work product privilege. UNIVERSAL anticipates the Plaintiff will
argue any documents contained in the claim file compiled prior to its anticipation of litigation are
not afforded protection by the work product privilege. However, with respect to claims
involving insurance companies, Florida Courts have held the question of what is and what is not
work product with regard to documents sought by an insured is not the determinative issue;
“Rather, the issue turns on what type of action [the insured] has brought…A trial court departs
from the essential requirements of the law in compelling disclosure of the contents of an
insurer’s claim file when the issue of coverage is in dispute and has not been resolved.”
Nationwide Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); citing to
Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Aloni LEXIS
11691 at 6.
12. In State Farm Florida Insurance Company v. Aloni, the insured asserted the
argument that any documents contained in the claim file which were prepared prior to the denial
of a claim were not made in anticipation of litigation and were therefore discoverable. The trial
court agreed and ordered all document created, including internal emails and activity log notes,
between the date the claim was filed and the date the claim was denied be produced. However,
on appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal quashed the trial court’s order and maintained its
position that “a party is not entitled to discovery related to the claim file or the insurer’s business
practices regarding the handling of claims until the obligation to provide coverage and damages
has been determined.” 101 So. 3d at 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); citing to State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tanchese, 49 So. 3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010).
13. UNIVERSAL asserts any questioning related to documents maintained in the
claim file or documents contained within the claim file and discovery regarding same is
impermissible in an action to determine coverage. Furthermore, if UNIVERSAL is compelled to
permit discovery into it’s claim file, it will result in irreparable harm which cannot be adequately
addressed on appeal. Aloni LEXIS 11691 at 7.
C. Trade Secret, Exclusive or Proprietary Information
14. Documents relating to UNIVERSAL’S underwriting guidelines and internal
guidelines are considered confidential and proprietary information. Specifically, claim handling
materials or training materials as well as its underwriting materials or guidelines are afforded
additional protection from discovery as confidential proprietary information pursuant to Florida
Statues 90.506, which provides:
A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to
prevent other persons from disclosing, a trade secret owned
by that person if the allowance of the privilege will not
conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice.
15. The material sought is trade secret and proprietary information. Florida Rule of
Civil Procedure 1.280 defines the permissible scope of discovery as any matter not privileged
“that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action” and “appears reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94
(Fla. 1995). Requests for discovery are not permissible where they are “an unwarranted
intrusion of the defendant’s business as well as burdensome.” Caribbean Security Systems, Inc.
v. Security Control Systems, Inc., 486 So.2d 654, 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). An insurer’s claims
handling process, including internal software descriptions, the order and type of
communications, and the outcome of communications, are not relevant or discoverable in a
coverage dispute. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio, 813 So.2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA
2002). Production of claims materials is impermissible and premature pending resolution of the
coverage issues. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. Wheeler, 711 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 5th
DCA 1998). Also see State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA
2003), which holds “claim files, investigative reports, adjuster notes, underwriting files,
company policies and manuals, training materials, certain personnel files, sales brochures and
marking 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 … claims, its casualty claims manual and
estimating manual, and minutes of meetings at which … claims were discussed were either
irrelevant to the first-party dispute that this case presents or are privileged work product. See,
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).
D. Privilege Log
16. UNIVERSAL further asserts its objection to the production of a privilege log as
the production of same is not required until after the Court determines that the documents are
“otherwise discoverable.” Gosman v. Luzinski, 937 So. 2d 293 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist.
2006); i.e.,until the Court rules on Defense objections which are other than, or in addition to,
privilege objections.
E. Conclusion
WHEREFORE, the Defendant, UNIVERSAL, respectfully requests this Court, in an
abundance of caution, enter an order precluding Plaintiff from inquiring into items/documents
maintained within the claim file and/or underwriting file as well an order protecting the
documents maintained within same from being produced, and for any further relief this court
deems just and proper.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished
to Jonathan Drake, Esq. using the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, to pleadings@stremslaw.com
and jdrake@stremslaw.com, this 30th day of August, 2018.
GROELLE & SALMON, P.A.
Attorneys for Defendant
485 N. Keller Road, Suite 151
Maitland, FL 32751
(321) 280-4880
(321) 280-4881 Facsimile
Primary: gsocourtdocs@gspalaw.com
Secondary: lrobinson@gspalaw.com
By: ______________________________
LUCIE A. ROBINSON, ESQUIRE
Fla. Bar No.: 113088
29400
EXHIBIT A
Filing # 75737188 E-Filed 07/31/2018 10:32:20 AM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE
COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO.: 2017-CA-007417-O
MARIA ARIAS,
Plaintiff,
-vs-
UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant.
______________________________/
NOTICE OF TAKING TELEPHONIC DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM
PURSUANT TO RULE 1.310(b)(1)
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney will call for deposition of the Field
Adjuster, Miguel Huertas, from UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY who performed the inspection(s) of Plaintiff’s property on behalf of the Defendant as it
relates to the subject claim.
This request is being made pursuant to Rule 1.310(b)(1) which states “A party desiring to
take the deposition of any person on oral examination must give reasonable notice in writing to every
other party to the action. The notice must state the time and place for taking the deposition and the
name and address of each person to be examined, if known, and, if the name is not known, a
general description sufficient to identify the person or the particular class or group to which the
person belongs.” (emphasis added)
This deposition will be held as follows before a certified court reporter, who is/are not of
counsel to either of the parties or interested in the event of the cause by oral examination, to continue
from hour to hour until completed, for the purposes of discovery and evidence, pursuant to the
STREMS LAW FIRM
420 South Orange Ave., Suite 140 Orlando, FL 32801 TEL: (321)234-3600 FAX: (321)256-5367
Florida Rules of Civil Procedure:
NAME OF WITNESS: Field Adjuster, Miguel Huertas
DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2018
TIME: 11:00 AM
LOCATION OF WITNESS: EXECUITIVE SUITES C/O VERITEXT
37 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE, SUITE 500
ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801
407-236-0400
Please bring with you to your deposition any/all documents requested in attached Schedule “A”.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy was served via Email to: Todd E Brant,
Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co. upciceservice@universalproperty.com on this July 31, 2018.
Respectfully submitted,
STREMS LAW FIRM
Attorney for Plaintiff
420 South Orange Ave., Suite 140
Orlando, FL 32801
Telephone: (321) 234-3600
Facsimile: (321) 256-5367
Primary E-Service: pleadings@stremslaw.com
Secondary E-Service: yadviga@stremslaw.com
Email: hpatterson@stremslaw.com
Email: alicia@stremslaw.com
By:
HUNTER PATTERSON, ESQUIRE
FLORIDA BAR NO.: 102788
ALICIA PEREZ, ESQUIRE
FLORIDA BAR NO.: 91930
MICHAEL PATRICK, ESQUIRE
FLORIDA BAR.: 1002537
STREMS LAW FIRM
420 South Orange Ave., Suite 140 Orlando, FL 32801 TEL: (321)234-3600 FAX: (321)256-5367
SCHEDULE “A” - DOCUMENTS REQUESTED
1. Defendant’s Field Adjuster shall appear for deposition with the entire file in reference
to the property of MARIA ARIAS, 4422 SEBASTIAN WAY, ORLANDO, FLORIDA
32808 for claim numbers FL17-0100023-C317, including but not limited to photos taken,
diagrams, maps, plots, measurements, estimates, notes, written statements, and written
communications between MARIA ARIAS or UNIVERSAL PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY or their attorneys.
STREMS LAW FIRM
420 South Orange Ave., Suite 140 Orlando, FL 32801 TEL: (321)234-3600 FAX: (321)256-5367
Preview
Filing # 77266824 E-Filed 08/30/2018 03:28:42 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 2017-CA-007417-O MARIA ARIAS, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ___________________________________/ DEFENDANT’S OBJECTION AND MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PLAINTIFF’S NOTICE OF TAKING DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM OF DEFENDANT’S FIELD ADJUSTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1.310 (b)(6) Defendant, UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY, INC. (“UNIVERSAL”), by and through undersigned counsel hereby moves this Court for a Protective Order pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure §1.280(c) as to the deposition of its field adjuster, and in support thereof states as follows: 1. This matter arises from an alleged water loss reported as occurring on February 7, 2017 at the Plaintiff’s property located at 4422 Sebastian Way, Orlando, Florida 32808 (the “Property”) which at the time was insured by UNIVERSAL under policy of insurance number 592-823-324. 2. Plaintiff subsequently filed this lawsuit for breach of contract. 3. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Taking Deposition Duces Tecum of Defendant’s Field Adjuster, Miguel Huertas, to take place on November 14, 2018 (attached as Exhibit “A”). 4. The Notice states that the deponent is to bring the entire claim file for the subject claim. See Exhibit “A”. 5. UNIVERSAL seeks to limit the scope of discovery to the relevant facts about the claim made in this litigation and seeks an order prohibiting the production of materials in UNIVERSAL’s claim file, as well as all materials listed in the subpoenas, because production is not supported under the law. 6. UNIVERSAL’s specific objections and supporting arguments are set forth in its memorandum of law as follows: MEMORANDUM OF LAW 7. UNIVERSAL objects to and seeks a protective order as to the overly broad scope of the Plaintiff’s inquiry and production of the documents which may be requested at the upcoming deposition. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 1.280(c)(4) provides that a party may seek an order from the Court “that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters.” In addition, parties to an action may obtain discovery of any matter not privileged that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action and “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Allstate Insurance Company v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla 1995). UNIVERSAL objects to the scope of inquiry to the extent it exceeds the permissible inquiry permitted in a first party action of breach of contract. A. Relevance Objection 8. Prior to its assertion of work product privilege and/or attorney client privilege, UNIVERSAL properly asserts relevance objections regarding the scope of the deposition and its relevance objections regarding any documents which Plaintiff may request be produced at the deposition. Specifically, inquiries into information or documents which are maintained within UNIVERSAL’s claim file are irrelevant to disputes concerning property coverage. Relevance is broader in the discovery context than in the trial context and that a party is permitted to discovery relevant evidence that is not admissible by may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. F.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(3). However, Florida Court’s have continually held that documents contained within the claim file are irrelevant to a dispute concerning property coverage. Kujawa v. Manhattan National Life Ins. Co., 541 So. 2d 1168, 1169 (Fla. 1980); see also State Farm v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012, 1013 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). 9. “Where the issue of coverage is still unresolved at the time of the insurer’s objection to the request for discovery of its claim file, the trial court departs from the essential requirements of law in overruling the insurer’s objections.” State Farm Florida Insurance Company v. Aloni, 101 So. 3d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); citing to Superior Ins. Co. v. Holden, 642 So. 2d 1139, 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); see also Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 so. 3d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also State Farm Automobile Ins. Co. v. Tranchese, 49 So. 3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)(holding discovery of an insurer’s claim file or the insurer’s business practices regarding the handling of claims is not subject to discovery until the obligation to provide coverage and damages has been determined). See also State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So. 2d 389 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), which holds that “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… claims, its casualty claims manual and estimating manual, and minutes of meetings at which… claims were discussed were either irrelevant to the first-party dispute that this case presents or are privileged work product.” See State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Valido, 662 So. 2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). 10. “Further, requiring the disclosure of claim file materials during the litigation of coverage issues would result in irreparable harm that cannot be adequately addressed on appeal.” Id. If Plaintiff is permitted to elicit testimony regarding or discover files contained within the claim file during an action for coverage, UNIVERSAL will suffer an irreparable harm which cannot be adequately remedied on appeal. B. Privilege Objection 11. UNIVERSAL further objects to questions regarding and/or production of documents which are afforded additional protection under the work product privilege as the information sought is maintained in the claim file. “Generally, an insurer’s claim and litigation files constitute work product and are protected from production. The analysis differs however, when an insurance company is sued for bad faith.” Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Ruiz, 899 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 2005) (emphasis added). Therefore, any inquiry into the insurer’s claim file is protected by work product privilege. UNIVERSAL anticipates the Plaintiff will argue any documents contained in the claim file compiled prior to its anticipation of litigation are not afforded protection by the work product privilege. However, with respect to claims involving insurance companies, Florida Courts have held the question of what is and what is not work product with regard to documents sought by an insured is not the determinative issue; “Rather, the issue turns on what type of action [the insured] has brought…A trial court departs from the essential requirements of the law in compelling disclosure of the contents of an insurer’s claim file when the issue of coverage is in dispute and has not been resolved.” Nationwide Ins. Co. of Fla. v. Demmo, 57 So. 3d 982, 984 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); citing to Seminole Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mastrominas, 6 So. 3d 1256, 1258 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Aloni LEXIS 11691 at 6. 12. In State Farm Florida Insurance Company v. Aloni, the insured asserted the argument that any documents contained in the claim file which were prepared prior to the denial of a claim were not made in anticipation of litigation and were therefore discoverable. The trial court agreed and ordered all document created, including internal emails and activity log notes, between the date the claim was filed and the date the claim was denied be produced. However, on appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal quashed the trial court’s order and maintained its position that “a party is not entitled to discovery related to the claim file or the insurer’s business practices regarding the handling of claims until the obligation to provide coverage and damages has been determined.” 101 So. 3d at 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); citing to State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Tanchese, 49 So. 3d 809, 810 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). 13. UNIVERSAL asserts any questioning related to documents maintained in the claim file or documents contained within the claim file and discovery regarding same is impermissible in an action to determine coverage. Furthermore, if UNIVERSAL is compelled to permit discovery into it’s claim file, it will result in irreparable harm which cannot be adequately addressed on appeal. Aloni LEXIS 11691 at 7. C. Trade Secret, Exclusive or Proprietary Information 14. Documents relating to UNIVERSAL’S underwriting guidelines and internal guidelines are considered confidential and proprietary information. Specifically, claim handling materials or training materials as well as its underwriting materials or guidelines are afforded additional protection from discovery as confidential proprietary information pursuant to Florida Statues 90.506, which provides: A person has a privilege to refuse to disclose, and to prevent other persons from disclosing, a trade secret owned by that person if the allowance of the privilege will not conceal fraud or otherwise work injustice. 15. The material sought is trade secret and proprietary information. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280 defines the permissible scope of discovery as any matter not privileged “that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action” and “appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995). Requests for discovery are not permissible where they are “an unwarranted intrusion of the defendant’s business as well as burdensome.” Caribbean Security Systems, Inc. v. Security Control Systems, Inc., 486 So.2d 654, 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). An insurer’s claims handling process, including internal software descriptions, the order and type of communications, and the outcome of communications, are not relevant or discoverable in a coverage dispute. Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Camara De Comercio, 813 So.2d 250 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Production of claims materials is impermissible and premature pending resolution of the coverage issues. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida v. Wheeler, 711 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Also see State Farm Florida Ins. Co. v. Gallmon, 835 So.2d 1347 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), which holds “claim files, investigative reports, adjuster notes, underwriting files, company policies and manuals, training materials, certain personnel files, sales brochures and marking 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 … claims, its casualty claims manual and estimating manual, and minutes of meetings at which … claims were discussed were either irrelevant to the first-party dispute that this case presents or are privileged work product. See, State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Valido, 662 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). D. Privilege Log 16. UNIVERSAL further asserts its objection to the production of a privilege log as the production of same is not required until after the Court determines that the documents are “otherwise discoverable.” Gosman v. Luzinski, 937 So. 2d 293 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2006); i.e.,until the Court rules on Defense objections which are other than, or in addition to, privilege objections. E. Conclusion WHEREFORE, the Defendant, UNIVERSAL, respectfully requests this Court, in an abundance of caution, enter an order precluding Plaintiff from inquiring into items/documents maintained within the claim file and/or underwriting file as well an order protecting the documents maintained within same from being produced, and for any further relief this court deems just and proper. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to Jonathan Drake, Esq. using the Florida Courts E-Filing Portal, to pleadings@stremslaw.com and jdrake@stremslaw.com, this 30th day of August, 2018. GROELLE & SALMON, P.A. Attorneys for Defendant 485 N. Keller Road, Suite 151 Maitland, FL 32751 (321) 280-4880 (321) 280-4881 Facsimile Primary: gsocourtdocs@gspalaw.com Secondary: lrobinson@gspalaw.com By: ______________________________ LUCIE A. ROBINSON, ESQUIRE Fla. Bar No.: 113088 29400 EXHIBIT A Filing # 75737188 E-Filed 07/31/2018 10:32:20 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO.: 2017-CA-007417-O MARIA ARIAS, Plaintiff, -vs- UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ______________________________/ NOTICE OF TAKING TELEPHONIC DEPOSITION DUCES TECUM PURSUANT TO RULE 1.310(b)(1) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the undersigned attorney will call for deposition of the Field Adjuster, Miguel Huertas, from UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY who performed the inspection(s) of Plaintiff’s property on behalf of the Defendant as it relates to the subject claim. This request is being made pursuant to Rule 1.310(b)(1) which states “A party desiring to take the deposition of any person on oral examination must give reasonable notice in writing to every other party to the action. The notice must state the time and place for taking the deposition and the name and address of each person to be examined, if known, and, if the name is not known, a general description sufficient to identify the person or the particular class or group to which the person belongs.” (emphasis added) This deposition will be held as follows before a certified court reporter, who is/are not of counsel to either of the parties or interested in the event of the cause by oral examination, to continue from hour to hour until completed, for the purposes of discovery and evidence, pursuant to the STREMS LAW FIRM 420 South Orange Ave., Suite 140 Orlando, FL 32801 TEL: (321)234-3600 FAX: (321)256-5367 Florida Rules of Civil Procedure: NAME OF WITNESS: Field Adjuster, Miguel Huertas DATE: NOVEMBER 14, 2018 TIME: 11:00 AM LOCATION OF WITNESS: EXECUITIVE SUITES C/O VERITEXT 37 NORTH ORANGE AVENUE, SUITE 500 ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32801 407-236-0400 Please bring with you to your deposition any/all documents requested in attached Schedule “A”. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy was served via Email to: Todd E Brant, Universal Property & Casualty Ins. Co. upciceservice@universalproperty.com on this July 31, 2018. Respectfully submitted, STREMS LAW FIRM Attorney for Plaintiff 420 South Orange Ave., Suite 140 Orlando, FL 32801 Telephone: (321) 234-3600 Facsimile: (321) 256-5367 Primary E-Service: pleadings@stremslaw.com Secondary E-Service: yadviga@stremslaw.com Email: hpatterson@stremslaw.com Email: alicia@stremslaw.com By: HUNTER PATTERSON, ESQUIRE FLORIDA BAR NO.: 102788 ALICIA PEREZ, ESQUIRE FLORIDA BAR NO.: 91930 MICHAEL PATRICK, ESQUIRE FLORIDA BAR.: 1002537 STREMS LAW FIRM 420 South Orange Ave., Suite 140 Orlando, FL 32801 TEL: (321)234-3600 FAX: (321)256-5367 SCHEDULE “A” - DOCUMENTS REQUESTED 1. Defendant’s Field Adjuster shall appear for deposition with the entire file in reference to the property of MARIA ARIAS, 4422 SEBASTIAN WAY, ORLANDO, FLORIDA 32808 for claim numbers FL17-0100023-C317, including but not limited to photos taken, diagrams, maps, plots, measurements, estimates, notes, written statements, and written communications between MARIA ARIAS or UNIVERSAL PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY or their attorneys. STREMS LAW FIRM 420 South Orange Ave., Suite 140 Orlando, FL 32801 TEL: (321)234-3600 FAX: (321)256-5367