Florida District Courts of Appeal, 2002

Hertz Corp. v. Knoechel

Hertz Corp. v. Knoechel
Florida District Courts of Appeal · Decided June 5, 2002 · Goderich, Schwartz, Sorondo
819 So. 2d 886; 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 7706; 2002 WL 1174358 (Southern Reporter, Second Series)

Hertz Corp. v. Knoechel

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Finding no valid reason for the trial court’s order compelling production of documents protected by the attorney-client and work product privileges, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the lower court’s order.

Certiorari granted.

GODERICH and SORONDO, JJ., concur.

Concurring Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge

(specially concurring).

Although there are many others, a primary reason for our decision is that Knoe-chel’s underlying claim is totally unsupportable. As we did in Hialeah Hotel, Inc. v. Talley, 790 So.2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), mandamus denied, No. SC01-2077, 816 So.2d 129 (Fla. March 19, 2002), review denied, No. SC01-1916, 819 So.2d 140 (Fla. April 26, 2002), I urge the trial judge to reconsider her prior interlocutory orders to the contrary and put an end to this already overextended litigation.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.