SNIPPED: "... 1. If Baez is obligated to keep confidential "privileged" communication information about physical evidence like the location of Caylee's body, what about P.I. Casey?
The
general rule in FL is that if a private investigator hired by an attorney in anticipation of trial finds any information or thing relevant to the case while so employed by said attorney, all information and/or things, including all facts as learned/uncovered by that private investigator, whether said facts/information be capable of being transmitted/shared verbally or tangibly, are also protected by the attorney work product privilege.
Exceptions to this rule are:
(1) when a party designates its own PI as a witness and/or
(2) intends to rely upon the PI's surveillance tapes/other tangible work for any purpose, be it impeachment, corroboration, etc., and one can tell if this is the case if the attorney makes the mistake as listing said items as potential evidence and/or attempting to introduce it at a hearing or trial. BOTH of the foregoing mistakes are gnenerally curable, as the below case explains-but you have to know what you're doing when trying to get out of the hole you've dug (and an attorney who dug the hole in the first place, er, might not know how to do so.)
or
(3) when the opposing party/side can show exceptional circumstances that require that the information be divulged, which is typically interpreted to mean that the other side/party could not within any reasonable means, acquire the same information/facts had it hired its own PI, which won't apply here, as there was nothing preventing the SA from sending a PI/deputy out to the places that the PI's hired by JBaez were going/looking/filming/etc.
NOTE: all of this presupposes that the PI's in question are licensed PI's in good standing, etc, which has been discussed some here:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=82091&highlight=witness
For those with Westlaw access, see this recent FL case,
Huet v. Tromp, 912 So.2d 336, Fla.App. 5 Dist.,2005, here:
http://web2.westlaw.com/result/defa...me/53/default.wl&ifm=NotSet&cfid=1&rs=WLW9.03
SNIPPED:
"Information relating to a matter which is the subject of litigation, which is received by a party's attorneys from investigators and adjusters in anticipation of or in connection with litigation, is protected by the work product privilege.... An investigator employed by a party may not be required to produce the work-product of his or her investigations, except in unusual circumstances constituting compelling necessity for the discovery in order to reach the merits of the cause. ...However, a party may waive the work product privilege with respect to matters covered by an investigator's anticipated testimony when a party elects to present the investigator as a witness. ... In American Motors Corp. v. Ellis ... the Florida Supreme Court held that the contents of
surveillance films and materials are subject to discovery in every instance where they are intended to be presented at trial, either for substantive, corroborative or impeachment purposes. The court reasoned that if materials are to aid counsel in trying a case, they are work product, but any work product privilege that existed ceases once the materials or testimony are intended for trial use. ...
[Turning to the Huets' matter,] The
first order denying the Huets' motion for a protective order [regarding the facts and information known by their PI's]... was correctly decided because the Huets had included these investigators on their witness lists, and indicated they intended to call them to present testimony and evidence at trial. ...
The controlling issue here, however, is the efficacy of the Huets' subsequent attempt to solve their problem by filing an amended witness list which removed any reference to the three investigators and then filing a motion for rehearing, arguing a change of circumstances.
[Therefore, the issue before the trial court was]...Can the witnesses be deposed as to “fact” work product? ...
Clearly any documents, reports or video tapes prepared by the investigators are now protected by the work product privilege. Furthermore, the Tromps cannot obtain indirectly what they cannot obtain directly by merely labeling the contents of the investigators' reports as “observations.” The investigators' “observations” are the equivalent of any documents or *340 reports they may have generated in the course of their investigations and are discoverable only under the conditions in rule 1...
It is clear that communications, reports, memoranda, etc., prepared in anticipation of litigation and passing between a client and his attorney, and/or their employed investigators, are work product. An investigator cannot properly be required, in a discovery deposition, to reveal the contents of such communication or reports relating to the circumstances of the incident or his investigation thereof,
absent proof of the adverse party's need and inability to obtain the materials without undue hardship [THIS IS WHERE WE GET INTO THE OTHER EXCEPTION I'D MENTIONED, #3]. Likewise, the investigators' “observations” are the equivalent of the contents of any video tapes they may have prepared in the course of their investigation. In Dodson, the Florida Supreme Court held that if surveillance movies or photographs will not be used as evidence, the contents are discoverable
only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances:
n limited instances, the contents of surveillance materials that are not intended to be submitted as evidence are subject to discovery if they are unique and otherwise unavailable, and materially relevant to the cause's issues. ..."
---------------------------------------------------
Frankly, the SA would have to show that it was not possible for it to have hired a PI to video or tape these same areas to show exceptional circumstances, which I doubt it can do.
"If P.I. Casey found Caylee and did not remove or tamper with anything was he legally obligated to report his find?
No. He couldn't while employed by JBaez, and there's no law that I could find in FL that obligates a private citizen or a PI to report anything they see and don't touch or tamper with.
If P.I. Casey didn't find Caylee because of a random tip from a psychic but got the location from one of the Anthony's would that change his obligation?
No. The rule is that if, while the PI is employed by JBaez, he is compiling information for JBaez, then it doesn't matter from whence the information comes. He still ultimately answers to JBaez, has to receive permission from JBaez to go wherever he goes, and is being paid by JBaez on behalf of Casey in pursuit of Casey's defense. The point is that had JBaez not hired him to work for him, PI Casey wouldn't have been receiving any information from anyone.
HOWEVER, if PI was, at some other time, retained to work for anyone who is NOT an attorney for Casey, then there is no attorney work product privilege that covers ANY of the information/things said PI learns/finds/generates during said time while so employed by a non-attorney. The work product privilege applies ONLY to PI's retained by attorneys while they are so employed. Things could get muddy if, following the end of the work for an attorney, the PI goes to work for a non-attorney and uses/realies upon information he obtained while working for the attorney to then work for the non-attorney...really muddy. 
2. Is there any way that Lee could officially be made an agent for Baez like a secretary or assistant?
I think Cindy and George knew before P.I. Casey was sent to Suburban to look for Caylee that Caylee was dead. Baez's objection to P.I. Casey being subpoenaed was that he had information that was privileged work product. P.I. Casey was allowed to go off the record when talking about the person who told him not to call 911 if he found Caylee.
John Morgan said Lee told P.I. Casey. I don't know how it is possible for information coming from Lee to be privileged.
But I also can't imagine Baez telling P.I. Casey to not call 911 if he found Caylee. ..."
The only way that Lee could be an agent of JBaez's would be if JBaez had formally hired Lee (e.g., complete with filling out tax withholding forms, paychecks, etc.,) in some capacity, which, to the best of my knowledge, he did not do. As a practical matter, this would not have been a wise thing for JBaez to do either, as it creates the obvious potential for conflicts that could disqualify him from representing Casey... 
While it is true that the PI cannot be made to testify about what he learned from investigating while employed by JBaez, the rule does NOT apply when he was retained by any non-attorney (see the above discussion for Q#1,) so if PI Casey was employed by the Anthony family AFTER his employment with JBaez ended, then he has to divulge what he learned and from whom, etc., and if Lee is asked these questions, Lee must testify and tell the truth.
