So.2d 108, 111 (Fla. 1970)(stating that the rules of discovery should be afforded broad and liberal treatment to effectuate their purpose), citing, Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 507 (1947). 14. Next, the right to go to court to resolve disputes is a fundamental right. D.R. Lakes. Inc. v. Bran

discovery of admissible evidence." Id.; see also Hickman Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 242 Entered o

; Lake Shore Radiator, Inc. v. Radiator Express Warehouse, 2008 WL 842989 (M.D. Fla. 2007)(protecting investigative materials as work-product); and Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 508, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947)(noting, among other things and subject to exception, that work-product includes inf

ation need not be admissible at trial if the discovery appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Id.; see also Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-508 (1947); Farnsworth v. Proctor and Gamble Co., 758 F.2d 1545, 1547 (11th Cir. 1985)(the Federal Rules of Civil Proced

)(3) was adopted in 1970 to codify the holding in Hickman v. Taylor, 1 329 U.S. 495 (1947). 10 involving co

the discovery of admissible evidence. Rule 26(b)(l), Fed.R.Civ.P.; Donahay v. Palm Beach Tours & trans., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 685 (S.D. Fla. 2007). See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 507-08 (1947); Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). In Oppenheimer, the Supreme Court discussed th

to a morbid craving for that which is sensational and impure."). IsiPretrial discovery is intended to aid the parties in their search for truth. See Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 501, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) (celebrating that "[t]he deposition-discovery regime set out by the Federal Rules o