The Florida Supreme Court last week adopted a change in the state’s civil procedure rules that increases protections for presidents, CEOs and other top corporate officials from having to sit for depositions.
The high court on Aug. 26 adopted what’s known as the “apex doctrine” for top corporate officers. The Florida Rule on Civil Procedure already provides such protections for top government officials, and the justices moved to apply the same doctrine to the private sector.
“Florida’s version of the apex doctrine, developed by the district courts of appeal as a common-law gloss on our rules of civil procedure, protects only high-level government officials,” the court’s opinion states. “On our own motion, we now amend those rules to codify the apex doctrine and to extend its protections to the private sphere.”
The incoming president of a state association of defense attorneys said the high court’s decision, which was authored by Justice Carlos G. Muñiz, was justified.
“The Florida Defense Lawyers Association applauds the court’s adoption of the apex doctrine,” Kansas Gooden told the Florida Record. “This rule will go a long way to protect a corporate defendant’s high-ranking officials and executives from harassing depositions, which are often sought to simply gain an advantage in settlement negotiations.”
The court’s opinion rejected the idea that the rule change would lead to top corporate officials having a “blanket protection” against having to sit for depositions in civil lawsuits.
“The point of the apex doctrine is to balance the competing goals of limiting potential discovery abuse and ensuring litigants’ access to necessary information,” the court said.
Under the new rule, a current or former top-level corporate official may seek a judicial order preventing the officer from being the subject of a deposition, but the court emphasized that this would not be an automatic shield.
“The motion, whether by a party or by the person of whom the deposition is sought, must be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration of the officer explaining that the officer lacks unique, personal knowledge of the issues being litigated.”
Justice Jorge Labarga dissented from the majority opinion and rejected the notion that a rule change was needed to reduce abuses in the discovery process.
“The existing discovery framework contained in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure adequately affords trial judges with the necessary authority and tools to deal with any potential abuse or harassment, thus rendering the new rule adopted here today unnecessary,” Labarga said.