Ferrigno v. Yoder
| Decision Date | 10 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1400,86-1400 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 2180 Albert R. FERRIGNO and Hermene Ferrigno, Petitioners, v. Aden S. YODER, John Yutzy, Auto-Owners Insurance Co., Suncoast Insurers, Inc., and Ted Bogusz, Respondents. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Steven G. Schember of Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg, Sarasota, for petitioners.
Thomas J. Roehn of Annis, Mitchell, Cockey, Edwards & Roehn, P.A., Tampa, for respondents Suncoast and Bogusz.
Mr. and Mrs. Ferrigno, the plaintiffs in the underlying personal injury and declaratory judgment actions, have petitioned this court for certiorari to review the trial court's protective order barring each from attending the deposition of the other. We grant certiorari and quash the order entered below.
In response to the Ferrignos' petition for certiorari, respondents Suncoast Insurers, Inc., and Ted Bogusz stated that the core issue in the declaratory judgment action centers upon whether Bogusz, a business associate and close personal friend of the Ferrignos, provided the Ferrignos with a "knowing rejection" form, required by section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes, to select uninsured motorist coverage lower than their liability limits. Mr. Ferrigno denies he signed the selection form; Suncoast and Boguez contend, however, that Mrs. Ferrigno executed the form as his agent.
After noticing the Ferrignos for deposition, Suncoast and Bogusz filed a motion for protective order alerting the trial court of their intention to ask the Ferrignos a series of questions designed to disclose the history of insurance dealings between the Ferrignos and Bogusz. More specifically, they hoped to develop the fact that Mr. Ferrigno had granted Mrs. Ferrigno the authority to sign documents as his agent. The trial court concluded that the asserted need to ask such questions of the Ferrignos independently in order to elicit candid responses constituted good cause for the grant of a protective order under Rule 1.280(c) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
Upon consideration of the petition, the parties' contentions, and the policies behind the discovery rules, we have concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in entering the order halting the Ferrignos' attendance at the deposition of each other. Simply stated, the reasons for exclusion advanced by Suncoast and Bogusz do not constitute good cause and the trial court's error cannot be remedied on appeal; the opportunity for each plaintiff to attend the deposition of the other will have passed. If the trial court's perception of good cause in this matter were correct, the instances would be varied and legion in which parties could be foreclosed from full participation in their litigation.
Rule 1.310(b)(1) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure requires that "[a] party desiring to take the deposition of any person upon oral examination shall give reasonable notice in writing to every other party to the action." This and all pertinent discovery rules are mirror images of their counterparts in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and Florida courts generally follow federal authority construing identical federal and Florida rules. Lingelbach's Bavarian Restaurants, Inc. v. Del Bello, 467 So.2d 476 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Wilson v. Clark, 414 So.2d 526, 531 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). The purpose of the notice rule is clear: a party has the right to attend and cross-examine all witnesses with information relevant to the litigation. Spaeth v. Warner Brothers Pictures, Inc., 1 F.R.D. 729 (S.D.N.Y.1941).
Former rule 1.310(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure empowered a court to order "that the examination be held with no one present except the parties to the action and their officers or counsel." It is a venerated principle that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Goldman v. State Farm Fire General Ins. Co.
...in sworn examinations while it would have no parallel right to do so under the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. See Ferrigno v. Yoder, 495 So.2d 886 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), review denied sub nom. Suncoast Insurers, Inc. v. Ferrigno, 504 So.2d 768 (Fla.1987) (trial court abused its discretion w......
-
Onaka v. Onaka
...parties who are able to understand the proceedings and to assist counsel in the presentation of their actions."); Ferrigno v. Yoder, 495 So.2d 886, 888 (Fla.Ct.App.1986) ("[W]e find the right of a party to be present at each stage of a lawsuit virtually sacrosanct and certainly paramount to......
- Smith v. Smith, 86-392
- Suncoast Insurers, Inc. v. Ferrigno
-
Table of cases
...506 U.S. 1034 (1993), §4:30 Ferrigno v. U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, 2011 WL 1345168 (S.D.N.Y. 2011), §11:20 Ferrigno v. Yoder, 495 So.2d 886 (Fla. App. 1986), §24:10 Fidelity & Deposit Co. v. S. Stefan Strauss, Inc ., 52 F.R.D. 536 (E.D. Pa. 1971), §5:22 Finjan, Inc. v. Eset, LLC , 202......
-
Objections to attendance of unauthorized persons
...an exclusion should be ordered rarely indeed”); Lee v. Denver Sheriff’s Dept., 181 F.R.D. 651, 653 (D. Colo. 1998); Ferrigno v. Yoder, 495 So.2d 886, 887-88 (Fla. App. 1986); Doe v. Lynn University, Inc. , 2017 WL 275448 (S.D. Fla. 2017) (excluding a party from a deposition where the depone......
-
Invoking "the rule" during depositions? Absolutely "maybe".
...statutes is referred to as the "Florida Evidence Code"). (5) See FLA. STAT. [section] 90.616(2)(a) (2007); see also Ferrigno v. Yoder, 495 So. 2d 886, 888 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. (6) See FLA. STAT. [section] 90.616(2)(b) (2007); see also Goodman v. West Coast Brace & Limb, Inc., 580 So. 2d 193 ......