Bush v. Schiavo
| Decision Date | 13 February 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D03-5783.,2D03-5783. |
| Citation | 866 So.2d 136 |
| Parties | Jeb BUSH, Governor of the State of Florida, Petitioner, v. Michael SCHIAVO, as Guardian of the person of Theresa Marie Schiavo, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Kenneth L. Connor of Wilkes & McHugh, P.A., Tampa, for Petitioner.
George J. Felos of Felos & Felos, P.A., Dunedin; Randall C. Marshall of American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Miami; and Thomas J. Perrelli, Robert M. Portman, and Nicole G. Berner of Jenner & Block, LLC, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Petitioner, Jeb Bush, Governor of the State of Florida, petitions for a writ of certiorari quashing a protective order entered at the request of Respondent, Michael Schiavo, as guardian of the person of Theresa Marie Schiavo, his wife. The protective order prohibited the Governor from taking the depositions of seven witnesses. We conclude that the order departs from the essential requirements of the law because Mr. Schiavo failed to demonstrate good cause for a blanket ban on the taking of depositions. A complete bar to the taking of any depositions may cause harm to the Governor that will not be remediable on appeal from a final judgment. Therefore, we grant the petition and quash the protective order entered by the circuit court.
This certiorari proceeding comes to us from an action for a declaratory judgment filed in the circuit court by Mr. Schiavo against the Governor and the Attorney General in their official capacities. In the declaratory judgment action, Mr. Schiavo contends that chapter 2003-418, Laws of Florida, popularly known as "Terri's Law," is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Mrs. Schiavo. As part of his preparation to respond to the constitutional challenge, the Governor filed a notice of his intent to take the depositions of seven witnesses. Mr. Schiavo was one of the proposed witnesses. Of the other six proposed witnesses, two were relatives of Mr. Schiavo, three were expert medical witnesses who apparently had knowledge of Mrs. Schiavo's condition, and one was identified as the person with whom Mr. Schiavo currently resides. Mr. Schiavo promptly filed a motion for a protective order prohibiting the Governor from taking any of the proposed depositions. The basis for Mr. Schiavo's motion was the asserted lack of relevance of the facts to which any of the seven proposed witnesses could testify at a deposition. In his motion, Mr. Schiavo alleged: "The Governor has failed to enunciate even one material fact that is in dispute in this case, and does not suggest how deposition [sic] of the subject witnesses is relevant to this cause, or is likely to lead to relevant evidence." Mr. Schiavo concluded that the Governor's notice of intent to depose the seven proposed witnesses was "nothing more" than an attempt to relitigate facts that had already been adjudicated in a guardianship proceeding concerning Mrs. Schiavo.1
The circuit court conducted a hearing on the motion. The attorneys for Mr. Schiavo and for the Governor presented arguments on the motion. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court indicated that it was "going to grant the motion with the understanding that if the Court finds that at the summary judgment hearing that there are factual issues that are yet to be resolved, that obviously that discovery would be allowed to take place." The circuit court subsequently entered a written order granting the motion based on the following finding of good cause: "[C]urrently there are no identifiable disputed material facts in this cause and therefore the proposed discovery would not be reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence." From this order, the Governor timely filed his petition for writ of certiorari.
"A trial court possesses broad discretion in overseeing discovery, and protecting the parties that come before it." Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 625 So.2d 106, 107 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), approved, 641 So.2d 855, 857 (Fla.1994). Pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c), a trial court may, upon a showing of good cause, issue a protective order "to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense" as justice may require. The burden of showing good cause is on the party seeking the protective order. City of Oldsmar v. Kimmins Contracting Corp., 805 So.2d 1091, 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). And, "a strong showing is required before a party will be denied entirely the right to take a deposition." Deltona Corp. v. Bailey, 336 So.2d 1163, 1169-70 (Fla.1976) (). Florida courts have disapproved the entry of protective orders prohibiting the taking of depositions generally and orders providing for lengthy postponements of discovery. See Office of Att'y Gen. v. Millennium Communications & Fulfillment, Inc., 800 So.2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
; Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 710 So.2d 1022, 1024-25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Brennan v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction, 244 So.2d 463, 464 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971).
In this case, Mr. Schiavo's motion for a protective order was based on the asserted irrelevance of any facts that might be developed at the proposed depositions and rested solely on his counsel's legal argument that all of the facts pertinent to a determination of the constitutionality of chapter 2003-418 were either finally adjudicated in the guardianship proceeding or were stipulated to by the parties.2 Thus, according to Mr. Schiavo's counsel, there were no disputed material facts in the case. In response, the Governor's counsel argued that the Governor's right to discover pertinent facts is not limited by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel because he was not a party to the guardianship proceeding.
Mr. Schiavo's challenge to chapter 2003-418 includes not only a claim that, as applied to Mrs. Schiavo, the statute violates her right to privacy but also claims that the statute is an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Guardianship of Schiavo
...v. Schiavo, 861 So.2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Schiavo v. Bush, No. 03-008212-CI-20, 2004 WL 628663 (Fla.Cir.Ct.2004); Bush v. Schiavo, 866 So.2d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Schindler v. Schiavo, 866 So.2d 140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Bush v. Schiavo, 871 So.2d 1012 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004); Schiavo v. Bus......
-
Phillips v. Phillips
...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. 3......
-
Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Memorial Hosp.
...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 ......
-
Magbanua v. State
...would have affected the result of the trial. See Solonina v. Artglass Int'l, LLC , 256 So.3d 971 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018) ; Bush v. Schiavo , 866 So.2d 136 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). But Magbanua's reliance on those decisions is misplaced. This Court, on multiple occasions, has denied certiorari relief ......
-
Defending and Responding in General
...with discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be regarded as a waiver of those objections. 39 Bush v. Schiavo , 866 So.2d 136 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 2004). With respect to motions for protective orders, the burden to demonstrate good cause is on the party seeking t......
-
Defending and Responding in General
...with discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will be regarded as a waiver of those objections. 39 Bush v. Schiavo , 866 So.2d 136 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 2004). With respect to motions for protective orders, the burden to demonstrate good cause is on the party seeking t......
-
Defending and responding in general
...to questions, even if he does so repeatedly. 47 See also supra , §10.61(f). (Crash Course in Objection Warfare). 48 Bush v. Schiavo , 866 So.2d 136 (Fla. 2d Dist. Ct. App. 2004). With respect to motions for protective orders, the burden to demonstrate good cause is on the party seeking the ......
-
The continuing story of certiorari.
...1141 (Fla. 1st D.C.A. 2009); Lifemark Hosps. of Florida v. Izquierdo, 899 So. 2d 478, 479-80 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2005); Bush v. Schiavo, 866 So. 2d 136, 138-40 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. 2004); Beekie v. Morgan, 751 So. 2d 694, 698 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 2000); Alachua Gen. Hosp., Inc. v. Stewart, 649 So. 2d 35......