Anderson v. Meiden

Decision Date28 January 2011
Docket NumberNo. 2D10–3475.,2D10–3475.
Citation56 So.3d 830
PartiesA. Eric ANDERSON, Petitioner,v.Eleanor D. VANDER MEIDEN, by her next friend, Nancy M. DUGGAN, Respondent.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Jonathan J. Davis of Walton Lantaff Schroder & Carson LLP, Ft. Lauderdale, for Petitioner.Carl J. Robie, III, Sarasota, for Respondent.MORRIS, Judge.

A. Eric Anderson petitions for a writ of certiorari to quash the order denying his discovery request for settlement documents between nonparties to this appeal and Eleanor D. Vander Meiden, by her next friend, Nancy M. Duggan. Because the denial of the discovery request essentially eviscerates Anderson's affirmative defense which he would be required to prove at a trial on damages, we grant the petition and quash the order below.

I. Facts

This case involves two trusts which Vander Meiden established during her lifetime, Trust A and Trust B. In 2005, Vander Meiden brought separate complaints against Anderson and the other nonparties for their alleged conduct in handling the Trusts, making distributions to her, and making various alleged misrepresentations.1 In November 2009, partial summary judgment on the issue of liability was granted against Anderson.

Thereafter, Anderson sought discovery of the settlement documents between Vander Meiden and the nonparties, alleging that they were relevant because the claims against the nonparties and Anderson arose out of the same conduct, to wit: the failure to fund Trust A. Thus, according to Anderson, any settlement amount between the nonparties and Vander Meiden would act as a setoff against damages which Anderson might be ordered to pay. After Vander Meiden filed her objections to the discovery, the trial court entered its order denying the discovery request.

In the order, the trial court determined that the claims against the nonparties were different in nature than the claims against Anderson. The trial court also determined that there was no setoff in this case for any settlement of Vander Meiden's claims against the nonparties. It is this order which Anderson seeks to quash by writ of certiorari.2

II. Analysis

Certiorari is the appropriate remedy when a discovery order departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceeding in the trial court, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Boecher, 733 So.2d 993, 999 (Fla.1999).Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Stark, 8 So.3d 506, 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). “Certiorari is rarely available to review orders denying discovery because in most cases the harm can be corrected 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 discovery is relevant or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and the order denying that discovery effectively eviscerates a party's claim, defense, or counterclaim, relief by writ of certiorari is appropriate. The harm in such cases is not remediable on appeal because there is no practical way to determine after judgment how the requested discovery would have affected the outcome of the proceedings. See Bush v. Schiavo, 866 So.2d 136, 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Beekie v. Morgan, 751 So.2d 694, 698 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Criswell v. Best W. Int'l, Inc., 636 So.2d 562, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

Giacalone, 8 So.3d at 1234–35 (footnote omitted).

Based on the specific facts of this case, we believe that Anderson has established irreparable harm. Sections 46.015(2) and 768.041(2), Florida Statutes (2008), provide that a party seeking a setoff must demonstrate at trial that he is entitled to a setoff based on the plaintiff's settlement or release with another individual or corporation. And here, that is exactly why Anderson requested the settlement documents. If Anderson is precluded from obtaining the settlement documents, he will be unable to prove that the claims Vander Meiden asserted against the nonparties arose out of the same injury as the claims made against Anderson. As a result, his affirmative defense of setoff will be eviscerated and he will be unable to meet the burden of proof required by sections 46.015(2) and 768.041(2).

We stress however that our determination of irreparable harm should be confined to the facts of this case. In no way do we intend to expand certiorari review to all orders denying discovery. We make an exception here because this is one of those rare instances in which a party's defense will be eviscerated and there would be “no practical way to determine after judgment how the requested discovery would have affected the outcome of the proceedings.” Giacalone, 8 So.3d at 1234–35. On direct appeal, Anderson would have the nearly impossible task of proving that the trial court committed reversible, harmful error in denying a setoff because Anderson would have no proof that a setoff was required. Indeed, Anderson would not be able to make a good faith proffer of what the evidence would have shown because Vander Meiden asserted numerous claims in her complaint against the nonparties and any setoff argument would be based on mere speculation that the settlement was related to claims arising out of the same injury as the claims made against Anderson. We therefore hold that based on these facts, Anderson established irreparable harm for purposes of certiorari review.

We also hold that Anderson has proven that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law. [T]he purpose of a setoff is to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Bd. of Trs. of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • September 27, 2012
    ...see also Haridopolos v. Citizens for Strong Schs., Inc., 78 So.3d 605, 608 n. 2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Anderson v. Vander Meiden ex rel. Duggan, 56 So.3d 830, 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); Acevedo v. Doctors Hosp., Inc., 68 So.3d 949, 951 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). In Martin–Johnson, Inc., this Court addr......
  • Am. Prime Title Servs., LLC v. Zhi Wang
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 3, 2021
    ...would not come into play until the jury found State Farm liable and determined the amount of damages."); Anderson v. Vander Meiden ex rel. Duggan, 56 So. 3d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (finding that where liability had been established settlement documents were discoverable); see also Dionese v.......
  • Allen v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • June 10, 2016
    ...with the homeowners does not appear reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.1 In Anderson v. Vander Meiden ex rel. Duggan, 56 So.3d 830, 831 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), upon which State Farm relies, this court determined that the denial of a discovery request for settlement documents r......
  • Boren v. Rogers
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • February 2, 2018
    ...the remainder of the proceedings in the trial court, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal." Anderson v. Vander Meiden ex. rel Duggan , 56 So.3d 830, 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (citing Allstate Ins. v. Boecher , 733 So.2d 993, 999 (Fla. 1999) ). However, "[c]ertiorari is rarely avail......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Certiorari Review of Orders Denying Discovery in Civil Cases.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 96 No. 3, May 2022
    • May 1, 2022
    ...the Fourth District dismissed the resulting petition. It distinguished a case where review was granted, Anderson v. Vander Meiden, 56 So. 3d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011), because in Strachan the defendant was "seeking discovery of the settlement amounts, not discovery to ascertain whether the set......
  • Certiorari Review of Orders Denying Discovery in Civil Cases.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 96 No. 2, March 2022
    • March 1, 2022
    ...So. 2d 916, 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Royal Caribbean Cruises v. Cox, 974 So. 2d 462, 468 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Anderson v. Vander Meiden, 56 So. 3d 830, 832-33 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Pace, 128 So. 3d 182, 185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013); Boren v. Rogers, 243 So. 3d 448,......
  • Certiorari review of nonfinal orders: trying on a functional certiorari wardrobe, Part II.
    • United States
    • Florida Bar Journal Vol. 86 No. 3, March 2012
    • March 1, 2012
    ...So. 2d 285 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2002). (20) Acevedo v. Doctors Hosp., Inc., 68 So. 3d 949 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2011); Anderson v. Vander Meiden, 56 So. 3d 830 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2011); Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Mem'l Hosp. Found., 8 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2009); Kaye Scholer LLP v. Zalis, 878 So. 2d......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT