Florida House of Representatives Ex Rel. Kriseman v. Expedia, Inc.
85 So. 3d 517 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A legislative privilege exists in Florida, derived from both the common law and implicitly from the separation of powers provision of the Florida Constitution, which protects legislators and their aides from being compelled to testify in civil cases regarding actions taken within the legitimate scope of their legislative duties.
Facts:
- Expedia and other online travel companies were engaged in tax litigation with Broward County and Osceola County.
- In a related Georgia case, Expedia produced confidential internal documents to opposing counsel under a protective order.
- The lawyer for Broward County came into possession of these confidential Expedia documents.
- The Florida Legislature was considering a bill that would provide favorable tax treatment to companies like Expedia.
- Representative Rick Kriseman, a member of the Florida House of Representatives, opposed the bill.
- Broward County's lawyer provided the confidential Expedia documents to Representative Kriseman.
- Representative Kriseman distributed the documents to all members of the Florida House and to some members of the press.
Procedural Posture:
- Expedia sued Broward and Osceola Counties in the circuit court for Leon County (trial court) over tourist development taxes.
- Expedia's attorneys served subpoenas on Representative Rick Kriseman and his aide, David Flintom, to compel their depositions.
- The Florida House of Representatives filed a motion to quash the subpoenas, asserting legislative immunity.
- The trial court partially denied the motion to quash, permitting limited depositions to proceed.
- The House of Representatives, on behalf of Kriseman and Flintom, filed a petition for a writ of prohibition in the First District Court of Appeal to prevent the trial court from enforcing its order.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a member of the Florida House of Representatives and his aide possess a legislative privilege that protects them from being compelled to testify in a civil case about actions taken within the scope of their legislative duties?
Opinions:
Majority - Padovano, J.
Yes, a member of the Florida House of Representatives and his aide possess a legislative privilege protecting them from compelled testimony. The court recognizes this privilege as stemming from two independent sources: the common law and the separation of powers doctrine in the Florida Constitution. Although Florida's Constitution lacks a specific 'Speech or Debate Clause' like the U.S. Constitution, the court held that legislative privileges were well-established in English common law, which Florida statutes adopt. As this common law privilege has not been abrogated, it remains in force. Separately, the court found the privilege is implicit in Article II, section 3 of the Florida Constitution, which mandates a strict separation of powers. Allowing the judicial branch to compel legislators to testify about their legislative processes—such as gathering information for a bill or debating its merits—would constitute an impermissible encroachment on the legislative branch. The actions of Representative Kriseman and his aide, which involved acquiring and disseminating information related to a pending bill, were deemed legitimate legislative functions falling squarely within the scope of this privilege.
Analysis:
This decision formally establishes for the first time in Florida that state legislators are protected by a common law and constitutionally-derived testimonial privilege. It strengthens the separation of powers doctrine by shielding the legislative process from judicial inquiry in civil litigation. This precedent will likely make it more difficult for civil litigants to obtain evidence from legislators or their staff concerning their official duties, thereby protecting legislative independence and deliberation from external pressures. The ruling also clarifies that this privilege is not absolute and must be balanced against countervailing governmental interests, though the bar to overcome it in a civil context is high.
