Antico v. Sindt Trucking
Florida District Court of Appeal
148 So. 3d 163 (2014)
- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Tabitha Antico’s personal representative, Tammy Lee Antico (plaintiff), and Sindt Trucking, Inc. (Sindt) (defendant) were engaged in a wrongful-death action arising from a fatal collision involving Tabitha’s car and Sindt’s truck. Sindt’s defense was that Tabitha’s own negligence was at least partly to blame for the accident. This defense found support in cellphone-carrier records and eyewitness testimony indicating that Tabitha was using her cellphone at the time of the accident. In discovery, Sindt asked that its expert be allowed to inspect Tabitha’s cellphone for whatever electronically stored information (ESI) could be relevant to the issue of comparative negligence. Tammy objected that this inspection would violate Tabitha’s privacy rights. When Tammy declined the trial court’s invitation to devise a discovery protocol satisfactory to both parties, the court crafted its own discovery order, which (1) gave Sindt’s expert access to Tabitha’s cellphone ESI, but only for the nine hours immediately preceding the accident; (2) permitted Tammy’s lawyer to monitor the expert’s inspection of the cellphone; and (3) permitted Tammy’s lawyer to raise objections before the expert released any of the ESI to Sindt. Tammy petitioned the Florida District Court of Appeal to quash the trial court’s order.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Osterhaus, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
