## F I FTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ C ase No. 5D23- 2203 LT Case No. 2020

- CA

- 0406

_____________________________ A LLSTATE I NSURANCE C OMPAN Y , P etitioner ,
v. B RENT M. H UBER , I NC ., M C D ONALD and C OMPANY I NSURANCE A GENCY , I NC ., K EVIN M C D ONALD , and KLLJMAC, LLC , R espondents

.

_ _ ____ ______________________ _ Petition f

o r Ce rtiorar i Review of O rder from the Circuit Court f or Marion County

. Gary L. S anders, J udge

. Kristen M

. F iore, of

A kerman L LP , T allahassee, and M ichael C. Marsh, S owmya Bharathi, E ric D

. C oleman, an d D onnie M. King, o f A kerman, LL P, F ort L auderdale, and R obert W

. Batsel, of Go oding & B atsel, P LLC, O cala, a nd G ordon J

. G lover, o f G lover L aw Fi rm, Ocala, for P etitioner

. Stephanie M. M archman, a nd J ulie Zolty, o f G rayRobinson, P .A., Gainesville, an d G regory A

. H e aring, an d B enjamin W

. B ard , of GrayRobinson, P.A., Tampa, and K ristie L . Hatcher

- Bolin, o f GrayRobinson, P.A., Lakeland, for B rent M. Hu ber, I nc ., Respondent.2

No A ppearance for R emaining R espondents. A pril 12, 2024
H ARRIS , J. P etitioner, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”), seeks certiorari review of an order denying its emergency motion for protective order as to Respondent, Brent M. Huber’s, attempt to depose Allstate’s Corporate Litigation Counsel. Huber argues that Alls tate failed to establish a departure from the essential requirements of the law because the order under review simply permitted the deposition to occur, but did not rule on any attorney

client privilege objections

. We agree. T he rules of civil procedure do not prohibit the deposition of an attorney simply because he or she is an attorney, and protective orders totally prohibiting a deposition should rarely be granted absent extraordinary circumstances. See Bush v. Schiavo , 866 So. 2d 136, 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (“Florida courts have disapproved the entry of protective orders prohibiting the taking of depositions generally

. ”). In City of Oldsmar v. Kimmins Contracting Corp. , 805 So. 2d 1091, 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) , the court noted that “Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(a) permits the taking of a deposition of ‘ any person .’” C ourts must “exercise great care before permitting the deposition of an attorney

. ” Stull v. Suntrust Bank , Case No. 09

- 82302

- CIV

- DIMITROULEAS/SELTZER, 2011 WL 13224911 , at *2 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 2 0, 2011) (quoting W. Peninsular Title Co. v. Palm Beach Cnty

. , 132 F.R.D. 301, 302 (S.D. Fla. 1990)). The mere request for the deposition of a party’s attorney can create good cause for the party opposing the deposition to seek a protective o rder pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c)

. However, when seeking relief, a party cannot make a general, blanket claim of privilege. Payne v. Seminole Elec. Coop., Inc ., Case No. 3:19

- cv - 1173

- TJC

- MCR, 2021 WL 3017392, at *9 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 2 , 2021) . T hat is all Allstate has done here. A ccordingly, we deny Allstate’s request that we quash the order denying its motion for protective order. During the deposition, Allstate should be permitted to make objections to3 specific questions, if necessary, and when the trial court reviews those questions and objections, it should make specific findings to allow for meaningful appellate review. See State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Kn app , 234 So. 3d 843, 849

– 50 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).
P ETITION D ENIED .

E DWARD S , C.J. , and S OUD , J., concur .

___ __________________________ N ot final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331 .

_____________________________