the ex parte amendments do not “require” a waiver or forfeiture of any privacy rights that are not already waived by the plaintiffs own action in pursuing a malpractice claim, the amendments cannot be said to unconstitutionally condition a plaintiffs right of access to courts on the waiver of the right to privacy. ■ This Court has repeatedly recognized the legitimacy of the medical malpractice presuit process. See, e.g., Cohen, 739 So.2d at 71-72 (“[T]he prevailing policy of this state relative to medical malpractice actions is to encourage the early settlement of meritorious claims and to screen out frivolous claims.... This policy is best served by the free and open exchange of information during the presuit' screening process.”); Kukral v. Mekras, 679 So.2d 278, 284 (Fla. 1996) (<HOLDING>); Weinstock v. Groth, 629 So.2d 835, 838 (Fla.
recognizing the legislative policy of requiring thepartiesto engage in meaningful presuit investigation discovery and negotiations and screening out  frivolous lawsuits and defenses recognizing flood of frivolous lawsuits filed by prison inmates consuming valuable judicial resources holding that brady does not place any burden upon the government to conduct a defendants investigation or assist in the presentation of the defenses case recognizing that civil rights lawsuits are private only in form holding that substantial or significant  is not  devoid of meaningful legislative standards 