American Southern Co. v. Tinter, Inc., 90-1072
| Decision Date | 21 August 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-1072,90-1072 |
| Citation | 565 So.2d 891 |
| Parties | 15 Fla. L. Weekly D2116 The AMERICAN SOUTHERN COMPANY and Development Corporation of America, Appellants, v. TINTER, INC. and Bing Construction Corporation, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Caruana and Gordon, and Lawrence S. Gordon, Miami, for appellants.
Hermelee Cowart & Minkin, and Joshua D. Lerner, Miami, for appellee Tinter, Inc.
Corlett, Killian, Ober, Hardeman, McIntosh & Levi, and Love Phipps, Miami, for appellee Bing Const. Corp.
Before BASKIN, FERGUSON and GERSTEN, JJ.
Appellants, The American Southern Company and Development Corporation of America (Southern), seek a writ of certiorari to review the trial court's orders limiting discovery. We deny the petition.
Appellees, Tinter, Inc. (Tinter), and Bing Construction Corporation (Bing), are involved in litigation regarding damages to commercial premises owned by Bing and leased by Tinter. Bing cross-claimed against Southern, as guarantor of Tinter's lease.
Southern filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was ultimately denied. While the motion to dismiss was pending, Tinter deposed the principals of both Tinter and Bing.
Although present at these depositions, Southern did not participate in the depositions and stated that it would not ask any questions. After its motion to dismiss was denied, Southern sought to depose the same witnesses, previously deposed by Tinter.
At the request of Tinter and Bing, the trial court then granted a protective order of the witnesses already deposed. Concomitantly, the trial court also denied Southern's motion to compel the attendance of the deponents.
Southern contends that the trial court erred in limiting Southern's right to depose the witnesses. Tinter and Bing deny error, asserting the existence of other methods of discovery and the additional burden and expense which would be caused by the duplicate taking of depositions.
The standard applicable for a writ of common-law certiorari is whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law and there exist adequate remedies for any injury or harm. See Glasser v. Darren, 552 So.2d 340 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).
Generally, a trial court possesses broad discretion in granting or refusing discovery motions and in protecting the parties. Only an abuse of this broad discretion would constitute "fatal error." Orlowitz v. Orlowitz, 199 So.2d 97, 98 (Fla.1967). Unless an abuse of the trial court's wide discretion in its treatment of requests for discovery is shown, the court's ruling will not be disturbed. Rosaler v. Rosaler, 442 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
The Florida Supreme Court specifically addressed the propriety of certiorari review for discovery orders in Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987). Finding that certiorari is an extraordinary remedy, it held that it is applicable only in "extremely rare" circumstances. Martin-Johnson, 509 So.2d at 1098.
As to orders denying discovery, "it is generally held that certiorari may not be utilized ... because such orders, if in error, can be rectified upon plenary appeal." Industrial Tractor Company v. Bartlett, 454 So.2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), cited with approval in Marshall v. Anderson, 459 So.2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
We find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the duplications of depositions. We further find that appellants have failed to show that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law and the absence of adequate remedies. Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of certiorari.
I concur in the denial of certiorari review but respectfully dissent in part out of concern that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, Inc. v. Kaye, POST-NEWSWEEK
...and there must be no adequate remedy on appeal. Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987); American Southern Co. v. Tinter, Inc., 565 So.2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Feldman v. Glucroft, 553 So.2d 282 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); General Development Corp. v. Stanislaus, 544 So.2d 306 (......
-
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Weeks
...which would cause irreparable damage which cannot be remedied on appeal should the ruling be set aside. American Southern Co. v. Tinter, Inc., 565 So.2d 891 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Lorei v. Smith, 464 So.2d 1330 (Fla. 2d DCA), review denied, 475 So.2d 695 Clearly, in response to the motion to c......
-
Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 92-2234
...court possesses broad discretion in overseeing discovery, and protecting the parties that come before it. American Southern Co. v. Tinter, Inc., 565 So.2d 891 (Fla.3d DCA 1990); Rosaler v. Rosaler, 442 So.2d 1018 (Fla.3d DCA 1983), rev. denied, 451 So.2d 850 (Fla.1984). The order entered he......
-
Anderson v. Meiden
...on appeal.” Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Mem'l Hosp. Found., Inc., 8 So.3d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also Am. S. Co. v. Tinter, Inc., 565 So.2d 891, 892–93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Indus. Tractor Co. v. Bartlett, 454 So.2d 1067, 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). However, when the requested discover......
-
Certiorari review of nonfinal orders: trying on a functional certiorari wardrobe, Part II.
...820 So. 2d 445 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2002). (18) See Sjuts v. State, 754 So. 2d 781, 783 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2000); Am. So. Co. v. Tinter, Inc., 565 So. 2d 891, 893 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 1990); Indus. Tractor Co. v. Bartlett, 454 So. 2d 1067, 1067 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. (19) Behm v. Cape Lumber Co., 834 So. 2d 2......