The Usman Law Firm, P.A.

The Usman Law Firm, P.A. Business litigation and employment law.

Depositions — Non-party AttendeesA party might not want an individual to attend a deposition to gain an advantage since ...
11/12/2025

Depositions — Non-party Attendees

A party might not want an individual to attend a deposition to gain an advantage since he will also be deposed imminently. While the courts want the parties to come to an agreement without the court’s intervention, disputes inevitably arise.

When your client is providing deposition testimony, federal courts for Tampa, Orlando, and Jacksonville generally allow another observer to be present at a deposition.

A proper factual basis establishing good cause would be necessary to seek a protective order from the court. Good cause is not established solely because the non-party attendee might be deposed in the case.

A protective order will only be granted by the court if the moving party can show annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.

What about Florida state courts? Florida’s state courts routinely refer to federal rules and case laws as persuasive guidance.

The Florida Rule of Sequestration. Florida Statute § 90.616 provides that a party may request or the court on its own may order witnesses excluded from a proceeding so that they cannot hear the testimony of other witnesses. However, this rule is limited to trials and hearings. A 1990 Florida case held that that there is no unwritten rule of sequestration that would prohibit prospective witnesses from attending depositions. Smith v. Southern Baptist Hospital of Florida, Inc., 564 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).

09/24/2025
03/01/2024
Presentation for Nature Coast Manufacturers' Association.
06/01/2021

Presentation for Nature Coast Manufacturers' Association.

04/26/2021

Feeding Tampa Bay event (Hillsborough County, Florida)

“Substantial continuity” of successor entities clarified to establish repeat OSHA violationsScalia v. Wynnewood Refining...
03/20/2021

“Substantial continuity” of successor entities clarified to establish repeat OSHA violations

Scalia v. Wynnewood Refining (2020) from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the factors to consider in determining whether OSHA violations should be characterized as “repeat”. These factors are adapted from the substantial continuity test used in labor and employment law.

In its analysis the court determined that OSHA should evaluate whether there is “substantial continuity” between entities that establishes a citation as “repeat.” If there is enough change in the corporate structure between the initial and subsequent violation, the citation will not be classified as “repeat”.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15640585317685223224&q=Scalia+v.+Wynnewood+Refining&hl=en&as_sdt=40006

Rotary Club of New Tampa - 25th Anniversary celebration
12/07/2020

Rotary Club of New Tampa - 25th Anniversary celebration

12/02/2020

Is it legal to record conversations in a business environment?

08/03/2020
Centre Club Business Committee breakfast -- Tampa, FLCommittee session on creating events with a traditional and virtual...
07/14/2020

Centre Club Business Committee breakfast -- Tampa, FL
Committee session on creating events with a traditional and virtual presence.

07/09/2020
SPOLIATION - Failure to preserve critical evidenceSpoliation refers to the destruction of evidence or the significant an...
06/30/2020

SPOLIATION - Failure to preserve critical evidence
Spoliation refers to the destruction of evidence or the significant and meaningful alteration of a document or instrument. A party must demonstrate that the spoliated evidence was crucial to its case or defense, it is not enough that the spoliated evidence would have been relevant to a claim or defense. This is because it could still prove its case through other evidence already obtained elsewhere.

Sanctions against the offending party are common. Sanctions for spoliation of evidence may include (1) dismissal of the case [or default judgment against the defendant]; (2) exclusion of expert testimony; or (3) a jury instruction on spoliation which raises a presumption against the spoliator. Parties can ask trial courts to permit them to introduce into evidence at trial the circumstances surrounding their opposition’s failure to retain and produce evidence, including emails.

A party’s failure to preserve evidence rises to the level of sanctionable spoliation only where the absences of that evidence is predicated on bad faith, such as where a party tampers with, purposefully loses, or intentionally destroys relevant evidence.

Address

20701 Bruce B Downs Boulevard, Suite 207
Tampa, FL
33647

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The Usman Law Firm, P.A. posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Featured

Share