ERN v. SPRINGER (2021)

Petitioner, plaintiff below in an automobile negligence action, seeks certiorari review of an order requiring production of his mental health records. We grant the petition and quash the order.

The order permitted the production of the records without limitation or in camera inspection to ensure that only relevant information is disclosed connecting the mental health records either in substance or time to the claim at issue. This departs from the essential requirements of law. See Laforest v. Laforest, 284 So. 3d 1099, 1099-1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (citing Zarzaur v. Zarzaur, 213 So. 3d 1115, 1120 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)); Brown v. Montanez, 90 So. 3d 982, 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); McEnany v. Ryan, 44 So. 3d 245, 247 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010). We grant relief without prejudice for the trial court to conduct an in camera inspection to confirm that the records are relevant and timely as to the claim at issue. See Zarzaur, 213 So. 3d at 1120 (“No documents may be disclosed to Husband or his counsel until after the trial court makes the required in-camera inspection to determine that every document disclosed is relevant, timely to the issue of Wife's then-present fitness as a parent, and either not privileged or within a valid waiver of Wife's privilege.”); McEnany, 44 So. 3d at 247 .

Petition granted, and order quashed with instructions.

Conner, J.

May and Artau, JJ., concur.