Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner, 83-489
| Decision Date | 11 January 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-489,83-489 |
| Citation | 452 So.2d 1 |
| Parties | DOW CORNING CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. Allibert GARNER, Kenneth L. Winslow, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
David F. McIntosh of Corlett, Killian, Hardeman, McIntosh & Levi, Miami, and Marc Cooper and Sharol L. Wolfe of Greene & Cooper, P.A., Miami, for petitioner.
Joel S. Perwin of Podhurst, Orseck, Parks, Josefsberg, Eaton, Meadow & Olin, P.A., Miami, for respondents.
Dow Corning Corporation has filed a Motion to Enforce Mandate, said mandate having been issued by this court in Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner, 435 So.2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We treat the motion as a petition and accept jurisdiction since the trial court did not comply with the mandate of this court. See Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 381 So.2d 1161, 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Accordingly, we grant the petition.
In 1982 the trial court issued two orders compelling discovery. We approved those orders as they contained "sufficient safeguards to protect petitioner from disclosure of work product, trade secrets and other privileged information." Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner, 423 So.2d 1034, 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). On February 8, 1983, the trial court changed the 1982 orders by substituting what we previously approved with what it considered an alternative safeguard. We granted Dow Corning's petition for writ of certiorari and directed the trial court "to enter an order containing the protections previously approved by this court." Dow Corning Corp., 435 So.2d at 988. Responding to this court's mandate and respondents' motion for a corrective order, the trial court entered an order on October 19, 1983. Instead of reinstating the protections provided in the 1982 orders, the trial court merely added another safeguard to the February 8th order. The trial court's actions apparently were based on petitioner's refusal to deface the original documents to be produced and court's view that the respondents were entitled to the original documents rather than photocopies.
"Absent permission to do so, the trial court on remand is without authority to alter or evade the mandate of this court." Stuart, 381 So.2d at 1163.
In passing, we address a concern of the trial court and respondents. Under the rules of evidence, duplicates of documents are equally admissible as originals. § 90.953, Fla.Stat. (1981). Only where there is a question about authenticity, or where the document is a negotiable instrument, a security or a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Milton v. Keith
...or decree, the trial court loses all authority to change, modify, nullify or evade that order, judgment or decree. Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner, 452 So.2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (trial court would be directed to enter an order containing protections previously approved by the district court o......
-
Ramsay v. State
...In some cases, a motion to enforce mandate is treated as a new proceeding: a petition to enforce mandate. Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner , 452 So. 2d 1, 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (citing Stuart v. Hertz Corp. , 381 So. 2d 1161, 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) ). At the same time, two courts have treated ......
-
National Educ. Centers, Inc. v. Kirkland
...or evade that order, judgment or decree." Milton v. Keith, 503 So.2d 1312, 1313 (Fla.3d DCA 1987); see also Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner, 452 So.2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). "The fact that we did not discuss one of the issues does not mean we did not affirm that issue." Sloane v. Sloane, 625 So......
-
Kahn v. Cooper, 91-1981
...v. Prime Motor Inns Inc., 461 So.2d 120 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), pet. for review denied, 472 So.2d 1182 (Fla.1985); Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner, 452 So.2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Jones v. Knuck, 388 So.2d 328 (Fla. 3d DCA Upon any further refusal or delay of the trial court in adhering to the man......