William Hamilton Arthur Architect, Inc. v. Schneider
In an architectural malpractice suit, the defendant sent a funeral flower arrangement to opposing counsel, prompting a sanctions/contempt motion. The trial court ordered the defendant to produce attorney-client communications for in camera review and to permit plaintiff to image his electronic device so the court could inspect his internet searches. The Third DCA granted certiorari and quashed both portions, holding the crime-fraud exception was not properly invoked and the forensic imaging order was overbroad and failed to consider less intrusive alternatives.
Key facts
- William Hamilton Arthur Architect, Inc. sued Schneider for architectural malpractice; during litigation, Schneider sent a funeral flower arrangement to opposing counsel, triggering a sanctions and contempt motion.
- The trial court ordered Schneider to produce attorney-client communications for in camera review under the crime-fraud exception and permitted plaintiff to forensically image Schneider's electronic device to inspect internet searches.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
A clean, citable statement of two recurring discovery-fight rules: the crime-fraud proponent's burden must be satisfied before any in camera review occurs, and forensic imaging of a party's phone or computer is a last… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.