From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Friedman v. Pope

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Dec 27, 2000
777 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Opinion

No. 2D00-237.

December 27, 2000.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Pinellas County, George W. Greer, J.

Stephen H. Sears and Brendan M. Lee of MacFarlane, Ferguson and McMullen, Tampa, for Petitioner.

James B. Tilghman, Jr., and Gary D. Fox of Stewart, Tilghman, Fox and Bianchi, P.A., Miami, for Respondent.


The petition for writ of certiorari is denied. This denial is without prejudice to petitioner objecting to follow-up deposition questions which seek information protected by the work product as defined in Southern Bell Telephone Telegraph Co. v. Deason, 632 So.2d 1377 (Fla. 1994), and section 766.106 (5), Florida Statutes (1999). Follow-up deposition questions regarding matters that occurred after the notice of intent to initiate litigation was served do not, based on this fact alone, constitute work product.

Petition denied.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and BLUE and GREEN, JJ., Concur.


Summaries of

Friedman v. Pope

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District
Dec 27, 2000
777 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)
Case details for

Friedman v. Pope

Case Details

Full title:Lawrence FRIEDMAN, M.D., Petitioner, v. Barbara POPE, Respondent

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District

Date published: Dec 27, 2000

Citations

777 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2000)

Citing Cases

Weaver v. Weaver

Thus, we interpret the wife's January 24, 2008, "motion to strike" the January 19, 2008, order as a motion…