Cmi Inc. v. Landrum
| Decision Date | 23 July 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D09–5502.,2D09–5502. |
| Parties | CMI, INC., a Kentucky corporation, Petitioner,v.Janet LANDRUM and State of Florida, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Edward G. Guedes and John J. Quick of Weiss Serota Helfman Pastoriza Cole & Boniske, P.L., Coral Gables, for Petitioner.Robert N. Harrison of Robert N. Harrison, P.A., Venice, for Respondent Janet Landrum.No appearance for Respondent State of Florida.MORRIS, Judge.
Janet Landrum is charged with felony driving under the influence. In her attempt to suppress the results of a breath test, she sought the computer source codes of the breathalyzer equipment by serving a subpoena duces tecum on the registered Florida agent of CMI, Inc., the Kentucky-based manufacturer of the equipment. In this certiorari proceeding, we must decide if the circuit court departed from the essential requirements of the law in failing to quash the subpoena that was not issued in accordance with sections 942.01–.06, Florida Statutes (2009), the Uniform Law to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without the State in Criminal Proceedings (the Uniform Law). We answer this question in the negative because the Uniform Law is not applicable to the facts of this case.
In the criminal proceeding below, Landrum filed a motion to suppress the results of her breath test conducted on the Intoxilyzer 8000. Landrum argued that the results should be suppressed because the specific version of the Intoxilyzer 8000 used in her case was not the version approved for use by law enforcement in Florida and that the source codes of both versions are necessary to prove that fact. Landrum served a subpoena duces tecum on CMI's registered agent in Florida, seeking the production of the source codes at a hearing on Landrum's motion to suppress.
CMI appeared in the circuit court for the limited purpose of challenging the subpoena by a motion to quash. CMI argued that the source codes are highly valuable, proprietary trade secrets, “which CMI has taken extensive measures to protect from disclosure.” CMI sought to have the subpoena quashed on the basis that CMI is an out-of-state witness and the subpoena did not comply with the Uniform Law, which is the exclusive mechanism for compelling out-of-state witnesses to testify in Florida.
After hearing argument on the issue, the circuit court denied CMI's motion to quash the subpoena, concluding that CMI was subject to the court's subpoena power because CMI is a corporation with a registered agent in Florida and doing business in Florida. The circuit court held that it was bound by the holding in General Motors Corp. v. State, 357 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). CMI filed a petition for writ of certiorari in this court seeking review of the circuit court's order, and the circuit court stayed the matter pending this proceeding.
We must determine whether the circuit court's order departs from the essential requirements of the law resulting in a material injury to CMI that is irreparable on appeal. See Price v. Hannahs, 954 So.2d 97, 100 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). A departure from the essential requirements of law requires a violation of a clearly established principle of law resulting in a miscarriage of justice. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d 885, 889 (Fla.2003). “ ‘[C]learly established law’ can arise from controlling case law that deals with the same issue of law.” Bermont Lakes, LLC v. Rooney, 980 So.2d 580, 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (quoting Kaklamanos, 843 So.2d at 890).
The Uniform Law allows for the testimony of material, out-of-state witnesses who would otherwise be beyond the subpoena power of the forum court, and it establishes uniformity in the procedure by which the out-of-state witnesses are compelled to participate in criminal proceedings. See §§ 942.01–.06; New York v. O'Neill, 359 U.S. 1, 9, 79 S.Ct. 564, 3 L.Ed.2d 585 (1959)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yeary v. the State.
...corporation authorized to do, registered to do and doing business in Florida. Id. at 1047. See also CMI Inc. v. Landrum, 64 So.3d 693, 2010 WL 2441026 (Fla.App. 2nd Dist. 2010) ( General Motors “holds that the Uniform Law does not apply to subpoena duces tecum seeking only the production of......
-
Ulloa v. Cmi, Inc.
...codes. The court then certified conflict between its decision and decisions of the Second District Court of Appeal in CMI, Inc. v. Landrum, 64 So.3d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), and the Third District Court of Appeal in General Motors Corp. v. State, 357 So.2d 1045 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).1 For the r......
-
CMI, Inc. v. Ulloa
...seek only the production of documents. Id. at 1047–48. In a case similar to the instant one, the circuit court in CMI, Inc. v. Landrum, 64 So.3d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), review denied, 54 So.3d 973 (Fla.2011), concluding it was bound by the holding in General Motors, denied CMI's motion to q......
-
Quest Diagnostics Inc. v. Swaters
...a State in Criminal Proceedings did not apply where a subpoena sought production of documents only. See also CMI, Inc. v. Landrum, 64 So.3d 693, 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), rev. denied,54 So.3d 973 (Fla.2011); State v. Bastos, 985 So.2d 37, 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008). That would be the case here. He......
-
The trial (conduct of trial, jury instructions, verdict)
...Thus, a request to produce Intoxilyzer source code documents is not required to comply with the uniform act. CMI, Inc. v. Landrum and S., 64 So. 3d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) The concept of “opening the door” does not apply when counsel asks a poorly-worded question and then immediately objects......
-
Pre-trial discovery
...on the manufacturer’s registered agent in state. This case is in direct contradiction to the other Florida case of CMI, Inc. v. Landrum , 64 So.3d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), review denied , 54 So.3d 973 (Fla. 2011). It also contradicts the Georgia case of Yeary v. State , 289 Ga. 394, 398, 711......
-
Crimes
...Alcohol Level 10.10 CRIMES Intoxilyzer source code documents is not required to comply with the uniform act. CMI, Inc. v. Landrum and S., 64 So. 3d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) A DHSMV hearing officer in a formal review hearing need not determine whether the officer legally stopped the defendant.......