While waiver of a privilege is not irrevocable, reinstatement of the privilege is incapable of protecting privileged matters previously disclosed. See Kramer v. State, 294 So. 3d 343, 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) ; see also Sajiun v. Hernandez, 226 So. 3d 875, 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (stating that the party who originally waived the privilege could not later reinvoke the privilege as to evidence previously admitted and waived); Garbacik v. Wal-Mart Transp., LLC, 932 So. 2d 500, 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (holding that the petitioner revoked his waiver of privilege when he withdrew his claim for mental anguish); Hamilton v. Hamilton Steel Corp., 409 So. 2d 1111, 1114 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982) ("[O]nce the privilege is waived, and the horse [is] out of the barn, it cannot be reinvoked."). But see Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.285(a) (providing the procedure when the privilege may be asserted after an inadvertent disclosure).
"A trial court has wide discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence, and, absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court's ruling on evidentiary matters will not be overturned." Sajiun v. Hernandez , 226 So. 3d 875, 877 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quoting Kellner v. David , 140 So. 3d 1042, 1046 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) ). A trial court is similarly vested with discretion "in determining how to perform its gatekeeper function when addressing the admissibility of expert opinion testimony" under the Daubert standard.
Further, she reinvoked the privilege at trial, and anything not already disclosed was not subject to being admitted at trial. See Sajiun v. Hernandez , 226 So. 3d 875, 882 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ("The waiver of the psychotherapist privilege is not irrevocable. However, a revocation of a waiver will not reinstate the privilege as to already disclosed information.
Although a lay witness like Mr. Surowiec may offer an opinion on a matter that does not require special knowledge, skill, experience, or training—we express no opinion on whether this case presented such a question—such a witness must testify "as to the facts or perceptions underlying [his or her] opinion."Beck v. Gross, 499 So. 2d 886, 889 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) ; see also § 90.701, Fla. Stat. (2018) ; Sajiun v. Hernandez, 226 So. 3d 875, 880 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Here, there was no such testimony; Mr. Surowiec just thought the note was original because he had seen lots and lots of other originals.