final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion
under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
for Writ of Certiorari - Original Jurisdiction.
P. Dore and Nikki E. Hawkins of Quintairos, Prieto, Wood
& Boyer, P.A., Jacksonville, for Petitioner.
S. Gowdy and Rebecca Bowen Creed of Creed & Gowdy, P.A.,
Jacksonville; Joseph V. Camerlengo of Camerlengo &
Anderson, P.L., Jacksonville, for Respondent.
Roseanne Hunt, the defendant below, petitions for a writ of
certiorari to review an order compelling production of a
surveillance video of Respondent that Hunt does not intend to
use at trial. We grant the petition and quash the order for
the reasons that follow.
the plaintiff below, served discovery requests on Hunt for
copies of "all videos, photographs, reports, invoices,
documents and any other item(s) and/or documents pertaining
to any and all surveillance performed o[n] Plaintiff."
Hunt objected on grounds of attorney work product, but she
agreed to produce copies of anything that she intended to use
at trial in accordance with the court-mandated exhibit
trial court held a hearing on the objection. At the hearing,
Hunt's counsel told the trial court that (1) Respondent
had been provided a copy of the 2014 surveillance video that
Hunt intended to use at trial, and (2) additional
surveillance was conducted in 2016 but Hunt did not intend to
use video of that surveillance at trial. Respondent's
counsel referred the trial court to Dodson v.
Persell, 390 So.2d 704 (Fla. 1980), and argued that
although Hunt was not required to disclose the contents of
the surveillance that she did not intend to use at trial, she
was required to disclose the existence of all
surveillance. The trial court overruled Hunt's
objection and ordered her to provide the following
information about the 2016 surveillance: "the person who
took the film, when it was taken, and where it was
Hunt provided this information, Respondent filed a motion to
compel production of the 2016 surveillance video. In direct
contradiction to the position taken by his counsel at the
hearing, Respondent argued in the motion to compel that the
contents of all of the surveillance must be disclosed because
Hunt intended to use a portion of the surveillance at trial.
The trial court granted the motion without further hearing
and ordered Hunt to produce the 2016 video.
timely filed a petition for writ certiorari in this court to
review the trial court's order. We expedited
consideration of the petition on Respondent's motion, and
based on the impending trial date, we issued an unpublished
order granting the petition and quashing the challenged
order. We now issue this opinion explaining our ruling.
relief is appropriate when an order departs from the
essential requirements of the law and causes material injury
to the petitioner that cannot be remedied on appeal. See
Martin-Johnson v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097, 1100 (Fla.
1987). Although "not every erroneous discovery
order creates certiorari jurisdiction in an appellate court,
" id. (emphasis in original), it is appropriate
for the appellate court to exercise its certiorari
jurisdiction to review an order permitting discovery of
material protected by the attorney work-product privilege
because the resulting harm cannot be remedied on appeal.
See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94
(Fla. 1995) (explaining that "certain kinds of
information 'may reasonably cause material injury of an
irreparable nature, '" including "cat out of
the bag" information such as that "protected by
privilege, trade secrets, work product, or involving a
confidential informant") (quoting
Martin-Johnson, 509 So.2d at 1100).
well-established that surveillance videos and other materials
prepared by a party's investigator in anticipation of or
in connection with litigation are attorney work product.
See Dodson, 390 So.2d at 707. It is also
well-established that although the existence of the
surveillance must be disclosed upon request whether or not it
will be used at trial, the content of the
surveillance is discoverable only if it will be used at
trial. Id.; see also Huet v. Tromp, 912
So.2d 336, 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (explaining that "a
party may waive the work product privilege ...