News & Insights

Recent Posts

Covid-19: Assessing the Legal Risk of Infectious Diseases

WSHB Employer Alert: FFCRA and DOL Regulations 4.2.20

Employment Practices Consultation & COVID-19

It’s a No-Win Situation: The Perils Facing Hospitals Due to the Coronavirus

COVID-19 Employer Alert: Summary of the CARES Act

COVID-19: New York Malpractice Law Alert

COVID-19 Employer Alert: Enactment of Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA)

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning to Announce the Winner of CLM's 2020 Outside Counsel Professional of the Year Award

WSHB Partner Robert Hellner Shares Mediation Tactics at CLM’s 2020 Annual Conference

Risk Transfer and Contractual Indemnification – Who Gets Left Holding the Bag?

New Developments in Challenging Certificates of Merit — Seeking Dismissal for Failure to Concurrently File Certificate with the Original Petition

Seven Habits that Define a Highly Effective Claims Team

Social Media Do's and Don'ts

WSHB Partner Kelly Waters Named to NJBIZ's 2020 Best Fifty Women in Business List

WSHB Names Andrew S. Kessler as Managing Partner of the Firm's Philadelphia Office

WSHB Employment Alert: California Law Banning Arbitration Agreements Temporarily on Hold

Sam McDermott on the Dos and Don’ts of Construction Project Termination

Full Disclosure! Insurer Beware: Colorado’s New Automobile Policy Disclosure Law Has Teeth!

Andrew S. Kessler Named Legal Counsel for Northeast Community Center for Behavioral Health

WSHB Elevates Ten Partners to Defined Equity Status

Eleven WSHB Attorneys Elected Into Partnership

Eighteen Attorneys Elected to WSHB Senior Counsel

Supreme Court Allows Suit Over Website Accessibility

Strategies for Defending Legionella and Mold Claims

Residential Revolution

Time Limit Demand Issues Arrive in North Carolina

Temp Agency Absolved of Liability in Hotly Contested Action

Alternative Fee Agreements and Construction Issues: Oil and Water or Perfect Pairing!?

WSHB's Graham Miller Helps Demystify Construction Claims in the Pacific Northwest

WSHB Partner Janice Michaels Named to The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 List

One Bad Apple: Navigating through Sexual Battery and other Intentional Torts

Leading Construction Litigator Cynthia Tari Joins WSHB's Dallas Office

WSHB’s Philadelphia Partner Secures Summary Judgment in Catastrophic Premises Liability Matter

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Andrew Kessler

New Bill In New York Proposed for Signature by Governor Andrew Cuomo is Set To Make Employers "SWEAT"

Renowned Litigator Jason Williams Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Litigator Richard Young Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Published Appellate Opinion Upholding Summary Judgment in Favor of Commercial Tenant Against $3.5M Subrogation Suit

17 WSHB Lawyers Honored as 2019's Rising Stars

Arizona Supreme Court Allows Court of Appeals Decision Expanding Defendants' Ability to Enforce Settlements to Stand

WSHB’s Jason Klein Breaks Down the Good, the Sad and the Funny Sides of Claims

Litigating Sexual Battery and Other Intentional Torts: Navigating the One Bad Apple in Medical Negligence

WSHB Partner Michelle Arbitrio to Moderate Panel on Insurance and Risk Management in the Age of Mass Shootings

Girl on Fire: The Price of Pursuing the Truth in the #MeToo World

Pragmatic Issues on Settlement Versus Trial for Legal Malpractice Cases

A Withering Assault

The Natural Progression of Natural Disasters

Nevada’s Governor Signs Chapter 40 Reform Bill

WA Condo Law Changes Hope to Curtail Frivolous Defect Lawsuits and Stimulate Production

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning Steps Into the Spotlight at this Year's West Coast Casualty Seminar

Professional Liability Expert Weighs In On Protecting Your Practice From Opioid Doc Arrest Fallout

Penalties, Punitives, and Granny Cams: The Escalating Lure of Elder Abuse Litigation

Are Structured Settlements Still Relevant

Game Changing Trends Affecting Construction

He's Not My Guy: The Joint-Employer Doctrine

WSHB Case Update: DOL Proposes Increase to Minimum Salary Threshold

WSHB and DWF Announce Exclusive Association

Employees Have a Private Cause of Action Under Pennsylvania's Medical Marijuana Act

Washington State Supreme Court Weighs in on Spearin Doctrine and Limiting Contractor Liability for Construction Defects

Employment Alert: Executive Order Said to Require Private Employers with 100 Plus Employees to Make Mandatory Vaccinations and/or Weekly Testing

WSHB New Jersey Client Alert: Covid-19 Virus Exclusion

Florida Supreme Court Expands Apex Doctrine to Include High-Level Corporate Executives

September 8, 2021

Why This Case is Important

Corporate executives and their legal counsel should immediately take note of the recently amended rule of civil procedure in Florida, which now formally recognizes high level corporate officials as a protected party under the Apex Doctrine.

On August 26, 2021, the Supreme Court of Florida formally expanded the protection offered by the apex doctrine to apply not only to high level government officials, but also to top corporate executives. In Re: Amendment to the Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280, No. SC21-292 (Fla. August 26, 2021). Prior to this decision, there was a split in the First District Court of Appeal as to whether the apex doctrine applied to high level corporate officials in addition to their government counterparts. The First District Court of Appeal in Suzuki Motor Corp v. Winckler, 284 So. 3d 1107 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019), found that the doctrine did not extend to corporate officials. In this new decision, the Supreme Court of Florida disagreed and amended the apex doctrine provision in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure to include corporate officials as well those in government. Justice Carlos Muniz, in his majority opinion explained that, “the efficiency and anti-harassment principles animating that doctrine are equally compelling in the private sphere.” He continued on to say that the court felt it was in the best interest of all involved to codify the addition of corporate officials into the rule. The court cited consistency and clarity as strong reasons for the change. It also pointed out that the case law in this area would be sufficient to support a rule change in this direction.

It is important to note that officials who seek protection under this rule cannot simply claim a broad or blanket lack of knowledge to qualify for its protections. Instead, they must explain why they do not possess unique, personal knowledge. The court also declined to further define the parameters of who qualifies as a “high level official” pointing to the plethora of case law available for reference on this question.

The Apex Doctrine

The apex doctrine requires a party seeking to depose a high ranking official to show that the party seeking the deposition has exhausted less burdensome methods to obtain the information and also that the official has special knowledge that would be unavailable to the party otherwise. The purpose of the apex doctrine is to protect high ranking officials from being subjected to abusive or excessive discovery requests and practices. In sum, the apex doctrine requires that a party seeking to depose a high-level official show:

  • The exhaustion of all options for obtaining the needed information from lower-level employees.
  • The officer from whom the deposition is sought has unique, personal knowledge of the matter at hand.

Text of the Amended Rule

The amended Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(h) reads as follows: “A current or former high-level government or corporate officer may seek an order preventing the officer from being subject to a deposition. 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. If the officer meets this burden of production, the court shall issue an order preventing the deposition, unless the party seeking the deposition demonstrates that it has exhausted other discovery, that such discovery is inadequate, and that the officer has unique, personal knowledge of discoverable information. The court may vacate or modify the order if, after additional discovery, the party seeking the deposition can meet its burden of persuasion under this rule. The burden to persuade the court that the officer is high-level for purposes of this rule lies with the person or party opposing the deposition.”

The Dissent

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Labarga relayed his concerns that this amendment may increase litigation and open up a large potential for “abuse, gamesmanship, expense and delay.” He also noted that only four other states have expanded the apex doctrine in this manner- California, Michigan, West Virginia and Texas. Additionally, five states have expressly rejected this expansion- Oklahoma, Mississippi, Colorado, Connecticut and North Carolina.

Practitioner Takeaway

From a practical standpoint, this formal expansion of the apex doctrine should assist lawyers in determining whether or not high level government officials and corporate executives may be called for deposition. It provides a definitive guideline and removes at least some of the ambiguity surrounding the applicability of the apex doctrine to corporate officials that existed before the change. It is also important to remember that the burden of showing lack of knowledge is on the government or corporate official opposing the deposition. The new rule is effective immediately and applies to both current and former officials.


Privacy Policy      |      Site Map

© 2021 Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required