# DelMonico v. Traynor

> Supreme Court of Florida · February 14, 2013 · 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 106

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4802194

## Case

- **Full name:** Daniel DELMONICO v. Arthur Rodgers TRAYNOR, Jr.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Florida
- **Decided:** February 14, 2013
- **Citations:** 38 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 106; 116 So. 3d 1205; 2013 Fla. LEXIS 298; 2013 WL 535451
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Lewis
- **Judges:** Canady, Labarga, Lewis, Pariente, Perry, Polston, Quince
- **Cited by:** 38 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4802194

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that the full force of the privilege applies to statements “made either in front of a judicial officer or in pleadings or documents filed with the court or quasi- judicial body”
- explaining that the privilege derives from balancing the public interest in a free and adversarial system against the private interests of individuals in being free from harm
- clarifying that, although not all statements made outside of the formal judicial process are protected by the litigation privilege, an absolute privilege applies to conduct occurring during the course of the proceedings
- concluding that qualified, not absolute, privilege applies to an examination under oath that occurred outside the formal discovery process of litigation

## Opinion text

LEWIS, J.,
dissenting.
I would not begin constructing qualified privileges (as the majority does here) and I would not superimpose the law of ex *1221 press malice into this area of the law. I would analyze the present case within our current legal framework and address whether the conduct is within the litigation privilege. Next, I would evaluate whether the alleged statements were inherently related to or connected with the underlying litigation.
I would first conclude that inquiry made as part of the litigation investigation and discovery is within the concept of litigation and can be absolutely privileged. Second, however, there are genuine issues of material fact that must be resolved by a jury concerning what statements were actually made and only then can it be determined whether the alleged statements were inherently related to or connected with the underlying litigation or beyond the litigation to be subject to relief.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4802194. Public record. Not legal advice.