work product and was exempt from disclosure-as no showing was made that any of the exceptions set forth in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b) applied. In this case, the lower court ordered production of the witness statements solely because they were sworn affidavits. No showing was made by Respondents to the trial court that any of the exceptions of rule 1.280(b) applied. The court compelled production of these witness statements without conducting an in camera inspection to determine if the statements at issue were actually work product and without finding that Respondents would be unable to secure the equivalent without undue hardship. This constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law. See Ashemimry v. Ba Nafa, 847 So.2d 603, 605-06 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). We find that the trial court’s order departs
holding that it was error to order discovery in a civil case of a recorded statement allegedly made in preparation for a criminal prosecution without an in camera inspection or additional findings with regard to work product immunity holding blanket order staying discovery on main issue because of related criminal proceeding was abuse of discretion because it vitiated defendants ability to prepare defense in civil case holding that entry of summary judgment while a motion for additional discovery was pending should be construed as an implicit denial of the motion for additional discovery holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion holding that general allegations of a need for additional discovery will not suffice the person presenting such a claim must show what discovery has been obtained why it is inadequate and the what additional information he expects to obtain from additional discovery