The Week in Torts – Cases from the Week of June 23, 2017
FLORIDA LAW WEEKLY
VOLUME 42, NUMBER 25
CASES FROM THE WEEK OF JUNE 23, 2017
LAST WEEK SECTION 57.105 MOTION INVALIDATED FOR FAILURE TO FOLLOW RULE 2.516(b)(1)–THIS WEEK DIFFERENT COURT DECIDES DIFFERENTLY.
Isla Blue Development, LLC v. Moore, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1355 (Fla. 2nd DCA June 14, 2017):
In serving its section 57.105 motion, the party did not eServe the condition precedent letter pursuant to rule 2.516(b)(1). There was no dispute that the section 57.105 notice was sent by U.S. mail and the parties did not stipulate to such service. As a result, the trial court concluded that the prevailing party failed to strictly comply with the requirements of rule 2.516(b).
The court pointed out, however, that subsection (a) of the rule provides that when a statute specifies a different means of service, every pleading subsequent to the initial pleading in every document filed in any court proceeding must be served in accordance with rule 2.516. Reading subsections (a) and (b)(1) together, the word “documents” in subsection (b)(1) is confined in meaning to documents filed in any court proceeding.
In looking at the specific language of section 57.105(4) which states that the motion which provides the required 21 day safe harbor notice must be served but it may not be filed with or presented to the court. Accordingly, the court said such a motion is only served on the opposing party but not filed with the court and therefore the email service requirements of rule 2.516(b)(1) did not apply. The court certified conflict with the Fourth District’s 2014 decision ruling to the contrary (and presumably the ruling that came out just last week).
TRIAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN IMPOSING A SANCTION OF WAIVER OF WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE FOR INTENTIONAL DISCOVERY VIOLATIONS.
Kidde Fire Trainers, Inc. v. McCrea, 42 Fla. L. Weekly D1357 (Fla. 3rd DCA June 14, 2017):
Finding competent and substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the defendant’s discovery violations were intentional, the court found there was no abuse of discretion or departure from the essential requirements of law when the trial court imposed a sanction of “work product waiver” on certain protected emails.