Caribbean Sec. Systems, Inc. v. Security Control Systems, Inc.

• Decision Date: 08 April 1986
• Docket Number: No. 85-2607,85-2607
• Citation: 11 Fla. L. Weekly 827,486 So.2d 654
• Parties: 11 Fla. L. Weekly 827 CARIBBEAN SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida corporation and Amtel Security Systems, Inc., a Florida corporation, Petitioners, v. SECURITY CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC., a Texas corporation, Respondent.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 654

486 So.2d 654

11 Fla. L. Weekly 827

CARIBBEAN SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida corporation and Amtel Security Systems, Inc., a Florida corporation, Petitioners, v. SECURITY CONTROL SYSTEMS, INC., a Texas corporation, Respondent.

No. 85-2607.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District.

April 8, 1986.

Benjie S. Sperling, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioners.

Holland & Knight and Scott B. Newman and Daniel Gelber, Miami, for respondent.

Before BARKDULL, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for common law certiorari, the petitioners contend that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying a protective order in regard to a request for production. We have jurisdiction. Orange County v. Florida Land Company, 450 So.2d 341 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); East Colonial Refuse Service, Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Malt v. Simmons, 405 So.2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).

The action below commenced with a complaint for damages for anticipatory breach of a contract by Caribbean Security, and its successor Amtel, to supply a certain computerized residential alarm system. The Request to Produce reads in part as follows:

"1. All Corporate Minutes of AMTEL SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. for the period of time from June, 1983 to the present.

2. All Balance Sheets, General Ledger Accounts, Inventory Reports, and other financial records of AMTEL SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. for the period of time from June, 1983 through the present.

3. All Documents by and between AMTEL SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. and CARIBBEAN SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.

* * *

* * *

7. All Documents by and between Jack White or Howard Shidlowsky and AMTEL SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.

* * *

* * *

9. The lease agreement between AMTEL SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. and the landlord of the premises where AMTEL SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. maintains its corporate offices.

10. All bank statements and other bank records of AMTEL SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. from June, 1983 to the present.

11. All Documents which relate or refer in any way to any of the matters raised in the Complaint or Defendant, AMTEL SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC.'s Answer to the Complaint, not encompassed by previous requests."

The definition of documents as contained in the Request was all inclusive. ¹

In response to plaintiff's request to produce and in Amtel's motion for protective order, it was pointed out that the plaintiff, Security, is a competitor, that the information sought was irrelevant, constituted an intrusion, was burdensome and was too broad in scope as to time and subject matter.

We find that the above enumerated requests are too broad in scope as to time and lack specificity as related to the issues as made by the pleadings, plus they are an unwarranted intrusion of the defendant's business, as well as burdensome. ² Palmer v. Servis, 393 So.2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Argonaut Insurance Company v. Peralta, 358 So.2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Begel v. Hirsch, 350 So.2d 514 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

The purpose of modern discovery is to disclose items that may lead to evidence on the issues as framed by the pleadings. City of Miami v. Fraternal Order of Police, 346 So.2d 100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Reynolds v. Hofmann, 305 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Jones v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, 297 So.2d 861 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). Discovery of documents in the possession of another party to a lawsuit is not to be used for the purpose of harassment. Fritz v. Norflor Construction Company, 386 So.2d 899 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); Balzebre v. Anderson, 294 So.2d 701 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Compare Buckley Development Co., Ltd. v. Tagrin, 270 So.2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972). To require "documents" as defined by the plaintiff to be produced by the defendant, would in fact cause it to bring its business activities to a halt. ³

Wherefore, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the order denying protection with directions to the trial court to enter an order denying the requested production of items number 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10 and 11.

Quashed and remanded with directions.

BARKDULL, DANIEL S. PEARSON and FERGUSON, JJ., concur.

DANIEL S. PEARSON, Judge, concurring.

It should be understood that there is nothing in the majority opinion that precludes the plaintiff from making a new and more specific request for production designed to overcome the defendant's irrelevancy, overbreadth, and burdensomeness objections. Notwithstanding that the majority mentions in passing that the plaintiff and defendant are competitors, it is my understanding that a claim by the defendant, if any there be, that some similarly unspecified documents may be privileged is no part of today's ruling.

BARKDULL and FERGUSON, JJ., concur.

1 By definition, in the Request to Produce, document is defined as:

"A. 'Document' means any written or graphic matter or other means of preserving thought or expression, and all tangible things from which information can be processed or transcribed, including, but not limited to correspondence, messages, telegraphs, contracts, checks, memoranda or notes of telephone or other oral conversations, studies, surveys, charts, reports, minutes, notes, diaries, schedules, cancelled checks, graphs, contracts, checks, memoranda or notes of telephone or other oral conversations, studies, surveys, charts, reports, minutes, notes, releases, newspaper or magazine articles, books, financial statements, ledgers, transcripts, affidavits, tapes, tape recordings, phonograph recordings, electronically stored data, whether originals, copies, or drafts, however produced or reproduced."

2 The applicable Rules of Civil Procedure provide the following.

"Rule 1.280.

(b) Scope of Discovery. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows:

(1) In General. Parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of any other party, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents...