General Motors Corp. v. State

• Decision Date: 11 April 1978
• Docket Number: 77-1855,Nos. 77-1836,77-1948 and 77-1974,s. 77-1836
• Citation: 357 So.2d 1045
• Parties: GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 1045

357 So.2d 1045

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

Nos. 77-1836, 77-1855, 77-1948 and 77-1974.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.

April 11, 1978.

Rehearing Denied May 19, 1978.

Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings and Thomas E. Scott, Jr., Miami, for petitioner.

Janet Reno, State's Atty. and Stephen V. Rosin, Asst. State's Atty., for respondent.

Before HENDRY and KEHOE, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari filed by General Motors Corporation against the State of Florida, there is presented for review an order of the circuit court of Dade County denying a motion of General Motors to quash a subpoena duces tecum directed to it for production of designated documents, service of which was made by serving the Florida resident agent of General Motors, said subpoena having been issued at the instance of the State Attorney of Dade County under Section 27.04, Florida Statutes (1975) incident to a criminal investigation.

The petitioner contends the court departed from essential requirements of law by denying its motion to quash the subpoena duces tecum. In support thereof petitioner argues services on its resident agent was ineffective; that issuance of the subpoena duces tecum was improper in that the exclusive method to have been employed was that which is provided by Chapter 942, Florida Statutes (1975) relating to interstate extradition of witnesses; and that the subpoena was too broad.

In an opinion order, the trial court dealt with those contentions when raised in the circuit court, and correctly denied all of them except the contention that the subpoena was too broad. Agreeing with that contention, the court granted the motion as to certain paragraphs of the subpoena. The order of the trial court, which we hold correctly disposed of the questions involved, is deserving of being set out here. It was as follows:

"Pursuant to a request from the Office of the State Attorney, on July 29, 1977 the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida, issued a subpoena duces tecum to General Motors Corporation, a Delaware corporation, registered to do, authorized to do, and doing business in Florida. On August 2, 1977, the subpoena duces tecum was served on C. T. Corporation Systems, the Florida designated resident agent for General Motors Corporation. General Motors Corporation is commanded by the subpoena duces tecum to bring certain corporate documents and records to the Office of the State Attorney for inspection on August 8, 1977. General Motors Corporation responded to the subpoena duces tecum on August 5, 1977, by filing a motion to quash the subpoena. In addition, General Motors Corporation has filed an affidavit stating that while some of the records and documents subpoenaed are in the possession of the Zone Office, Oldsmobile Division, General Motors Corporation, located in Jacksonville, Florida, the remaining subpoenaed documents and records are located outside the State of Florida. This matter, then, is before this Court pursuant to the motion of General Motors Corporation to quash the subpoena duces tecum issued at the behest of the Office of the State Attorney.

"The Uniform Law to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses from Within or Without a State in Criminal Proceedings, Chapter 942 of the 1975 Florida Statutes, as it is now worded is limited to acquiring the attendance and the testimony of witnesses located outside of Florida. There is presently a conflict of opinion regarding the applicability of the Uniform Law to a request for production of documents ancillary to a request for testimony. Compare In the Matter of Grothe, 59 Ill.App.2d 1, 208 N.E.2d 581 (1st D.C.A.1965) with In re Saperstein, 30 N.J.Super. 373, 104 A.2d 842 (Super.Ct.App.Div.1954) and In re Bick, 82 Misc.2d 1043, 372 N.Y.S.2d 447 (Sup.Ct.1975). The Uniform Law does not, as it presently reads, apply to requests solely for the production of documents. Furthermore, as noted above, the Uniform Law applies only to witnesses located outside of Florida. Since the instant subpoena duces tecum requests only the production of documents and since it is directed to a foreign corporation authorized to do, registered to do and doing business in Florida, the Uniform Law is inapplicable.

"Section 607.327, Florida Statutes (1975), perspicuously provides that process may be served upon a foreign corporation pursuant to the provisions of Chapters 48 or 49 of the Florida Statutes. Sections 48.081(1) and (3), 48.091(1), and 48.181(2) Florida Statutes (1975), require every foreign corporation qualified to transact business in this state to designate a resident agent upon whom legal process may be properly served. Service of the instant criminal investigatory subpoena duces tecum upon C. T. Corporation Systems, the designated resident agent of General Motors Corporation was, therefore, authorized...