Petitioner, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”), seeks certiorari review of an order denying its emergency motion for protective order as to Respondent, Brent M. Hubers, attempt to depose Allstates 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 attorney-client 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 partys 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 Allstates request that we quash the order denying its motion for protective order. During the deposition, Allstate should be permitted to make objections to 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.
Harris, J.
Edwards, C.J., and Soud, J., concur.