Roatan Cruise Terminal, S.A. de C.V. v. HPA, Inc.

Filing 97

ORDER granting 63 Motion for Protective OrderMotion to Quash Subpoena filed by American Bridge Honduras S de R.L. Signed by Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan on 9/26/2011. (mkr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 10-23701-CIV-LENARD/O’SULLIVAN
ROATAN CRUISE TERMINAL, S.A. de S.V.,
a Honduran corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
HPA, INC. n/k/a HALCROW, INC.,
a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.
_________________________/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Non-Party American Bridge’s Motion
for Protective Order or to Quash Subpoena (DE# 63, 7/7/11). Having reviewed the
applicable filings and law, having held a hearing in this matter, having heard testimony
in this matter, and for the reasons stated on the record, it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Non-Party American Bridge’s Motion for
Protective Order or to Quash Subpoena (DE# 63, 7/7/11) is GRANTED. The work
product doctrine protects from disclosure materials prepared by or for a party or for that
party's attorney in anticipation of litigation. Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). The
doctrine is codified in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Rule 26(b)(3) states in part as follows:
"Ordinarily, a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared
in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative
(including the other party's attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent)."
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). Litigation need not be imminent "as long as the primary

motivating purpose behind the creation of the document was to aid in possible future
litigation." United States v. Davis, 636 F.2d 1028, 1040 (5th Cir. 1981). The party
invoking the work product doctrine has the burden of establishing its applicability. Stern
v. O’Quinn, 253 F.R.D. 663, 674 (S.D. Fla. 2008). For the reasons stated on the record
during the September 23, 2011, hearing before the undersigned, the undersigned finds
that the primary motivating purpose behind the creation of the documents was to aid in
possible future litigation. American Bridge has met their burden and established the
applicability of the work product doctrine. The subject documents are protected and
need not be disclosed.
DONE AND ORDERED, in Chambers, at Miami, Florida, this 26th day of
September, 2011.

JOHN J. O’SULLIVAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to:
United States District Judge Lenard
All Counsel of Record