STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY AND STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS OF ORLANDO, LLC, D/B/A STAND-UP MRI OF ORLANDO, Respondent.

25 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 159a

Online Reference: FLWSUPP 2502STATInsurance — Discovery — Orders compelling production of “Geozip” Decision Point Analysis did not constitute departure from essential requirements of law that would cause irreparable injury that cannot be remedied on appeal from final judgment

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY AND STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Petitioner, v. HEALTH DIAGNOSTICS OF ORLANDO, LLC, D/B/A STAND-UP MRI OF ORLANDO, Respondent. Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit (Appellate) in and for Broward County. Case No. CACE 15-012576 (AW). January 20, 2016. Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the County Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, John D. Fry, Judge. Counsel: Mark D. Tinker, Banker, Lopez, Gassler, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Petitioners. Julie H. Littky-Rubin, Clark, Fountain, La Vista, Prather, Keen & Littky-Rubin, LLP, West Palm Beach, for Respondent.

FINAL ORDER DENYINGPETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(PER CURIAM.) Having carefully reviewed the Petition and its Appendix, the Amended Response and its Appendix, the Reply, and the applicable law, this Court finds that the county court’s orders compelling production of the “Geozip” Decision Point Analysis did not constitute a departure from the essential requirements of law that will cause material and irreparable injury that cannot be corrected on appeal from the final judgment in the cases. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Motion to Strike Reply or, in the Alternative, Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply is hereby DENIED as moot.

Respondent’s Motion Seeking Dismissal as a Sanction for the Filing of a Frivolous or Bad Faith Petition for Writ of Certiorari Pursuant to Rule 9.410 is hereby DENIED. Respondent’s Motion for Attorney’s Fees is hereby CONDITIONALLY GRANTED, contingent upon Respondent prevailing on the merits in the proceedings below. (PHILLIPS, GATES and IMPERATO, JJ., concur.)