Fourth DCA Reiterates Limited Scope of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.1310(b)(6)

In a March 6, 2019 decision in Bellezza v. Menendez, No. 4D17-3277, __ So. 3d __, the Fourth DCA reversed a trial court judgment, where the trial court had permitted introduction into evidence of the plaintiff attorney’s relationship with her client’s treating physicians. Among other things, the Fourth DCA held that it was error for the trial court to have compelled the plaintiff’s attorney of record to testify at trial, even where the plaintiff’s attorney was the person with most knowledge of the firm’s records. The Fourth DCA reiterated its prior holding, in Carriage Hills Condo., Inc. v. JBH Roofing & Constructors, Inc., 109 So. 3d 329, 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013), that Rule 1.310(b)(6) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure does not require a corporation to produce the person with most knowledge on a topic. Instead, it can permit the company to select and prepare a witness to testify on its behalf. Here, the trial court compelled the plaintiff’s attorney of record to be deposed and to testify at trial. The defendants had used this information to the prejudice of the plaintiff: “using this evidence, the defendants argued the attorney essentially created the lawsuit.”

It is important to keep the scope of Rule 1.130(b)(6) in mind when selecting a witness to testify on behalf of a corporate client, especially where that choice may impact presentation of the case to a jury.