In Younkin, a defendant in an automobile negligence case was ordered to provide information regarding the relationship between his experts and non-parties, including the defendant’s law firm and the defendant’s insurer. The trial court authorized the discovery, even though under Worley v. Central Florida Young Men’s Christian Association, 228 So. 3d 18 (Fla. 2017), similar discovery may not be obtained from a plaintiff. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that the discovery was permissible, but certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court: whether Worley should apply to preclude a defense law firm from having to disclose its financial relationship with experts.
In an amicus brief joined by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, the Institute argued that Worley has created an untenable situation in which lower courts are treating plaintiffs and defendants differently when it comes to who may engage in financial bias discovery, undermining the fundamental fairness of the civil justice system. The amici asked the Court to correct the errant ruling in Worley or at least limit its scope.
Unfortunately, the Florida Supreme Court declined to take up that opportunity, finding that the ruling under review did not depart from “clearly established law” as the “plaintiffs-only” Worley decision was not applicable to these facts.
The Institute was represented by William W. Large and Jason Gonzalez and Amber Stoner Nunnally of Shutts & Bowen LLP.