FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 5D23-2203

LT Case No. 2020-CA-0406

_____________________________

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Petitioner, 

v.

BRENT M. HUBER, INC.,

MCDONALD and COMPANY 

INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., KEVIN 

MCDONALD, and KLLJMAC,

LLC, 

Respondents. 

_____________________________

Petition for Certiorari Review of Order from the Circuit Court for 

Marion County. 

Gary L. Sanders, Judge. 

Kristen M. Fiore, of Akerman LLP, Tallahassee, and Michael C. 

Marsh, Sowmya Bharathi, Eric D. Coleman, and Donnie M. King, 

of Akerman, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, and Robert W. Batsel, of 

Gooding & Batsel, PLLC, Ocala, and Gordon J. Glover, of Glover 

Law Firm, Ocala, for Petitioner.

Stephanie M. Marchman, and Julie Zolty, of GrayRobinson, P.A.,

Gainesville, and Gregory A. Hearing, and Benjamin W. Bard, of

GrayRobinson, P.A., Tampa, and Kristie L. Hatcher-Bolin, of

GrayRobinson, P.A., Lakeland, for Brent M. Huber, Inc., 

Respondent.
2 

No Appearance for Remaining Respondents. 

April 12, 2024

HARRIS, J.

Petitioner, 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

Allstate 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 attorneyclient privilege objections. We agree. 

The 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.’” Courts 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. 20, 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

order 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). That is all Allstate has done here.

Accordingly, 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 to 
3 

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. Knapp, 234 So. 3d 843, 849–50 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018).

PETITION DENIED. 

EDWARDS, C.J., and SOUD, J., concur. 

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________