Jackson v. Computer Sci. Raytheon, No. 1D09-5985.
| Court | Court of Appeal of Florida (US) |
| Writing for the Court | HAWKES, C.J |
| Citation | 36 So.3d 754 |
| Parties | Kenneth L. JACKSON, Petitioner,v.COMPUTER SCIENCE RAYTHEON and CNA Insurance Company, Respondents. |
| Docket Number | No. 1D09-5985. |
| Decision Date | 27 April 2010 |
36 So.3d 754
Kenneth L. JACKSON, Petitioner,
v.
COMPUTER SCIENCE RAYTHEON and CNA Insurance Company, Respondents.
No. 1D09-5985.
District Court of Appeal of Florida,
First District.
April 27, 2010.
Richard M. Margadonna of Moran, Kidd, Lyons, Johnson & Berkson, P.A., Orlando, for Respondents.
HAWKES, C.J.
The Claimant petitions for certiorari review of an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) granting, in part, the Employer/Carrier's (E/C) motion to compel production of certain financial documents. The parties do not contest that the compelled production of irrelevant financial documents is a departure from the essential requirements of law. Therefore, the question pending before us is the relevancy of the requested documents.
Claimant makes two arguments concerning the JCC's ordered production of the contested documents. The first is simply that the financial documents are not relevant to the issues pending before the JCC. The second is that the JCC can never order the production of financial documents without first holding a hearing and making specific findings of relevancy. Because we conclude the financial records at issue are irrelevant to the pending legal issues as a matter of law, we grant the petition. Accordingly, it is unnecessary to address the second argument as to whether a hearing must always be held prior to ordering the production of financial documents even when relevancy may be readily apparent.
In August 2009, Claimant filed a petition for benefits (PFB) challenging the E/C's
Specifically responding to Claimant's defenses (avoidances), the E/C filed a request for production of various financial documents, including accounts held jointly by Claimant and his wife. Claimant objected to the requests as either irrelevant or already provided. The E/C then moved to compel production of the documents, arguing Claimant's financial circumstances were relevant to the case given Claimant's purported avoidances especially by way of detrimental reliance. In response, Claimant argued the request invaded his privacy and necessitated an evidentiary hearing pursuant to this court's holding in Spry v. Professional Employer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
22nd Century Props., LLC v. FPH Props., LLC, No. 4D13–3537.
...So.2d 569, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), “[e]quity will not act when there is a remedy at law.” Jackson v. 160 So.3d 145Computer Sci. Raytheon, 36 So.3d 754, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Here, the purpose of FPH's action was to recover the money taken by appellants' fraud. All the causes of action r......
-
Stockinger v. Zeilberger, No. 3D14–550.
...analysis to determine whether the petitioner had made a prima facie showing of irreparable harm”); Jackson v. Computer Sci. Raytheon, 36 So.3d 754, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“Certiorari jurisdiction does not arise unless the court first establishes irreparable harm.”).The trial court's Order......
-
Stockinger v. Zeilberger, No. 3D14-550
...analysis to determine whether the petitioner had made a prima facie showing of irreparable harm"); Jackson v. Computer Sci. Raytheon, 36 So. 3d 754, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ("Certiorari jurisdiction does not arise unless the court first establishes irreparable harm."). The trial court's Ord......
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Farhood, No. 1D14–0268.
...Crate & Ice Co. v. Citizens Bank of Inverness, 98 Fla. 186, 192, 123 So. 699, 701 (1929) ; see also Jackson v. Computer Science Raytheon, 36 So.3d 754, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (recitation of rule).The circuit court's frustration with the slow progress of a stale case is certainly understand......
-
22nd Century Props., LLC v. FPH Props., LLC, No. 4D13–3537.
...So.2d 569, 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), “[e]quity will not act when there is a remedy at law.” Jackson v. 160 So.3d 145Computer Sci. Raytheon, 36 So.3d 754, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Here, the purpose of FPH's action was to recover the money taken by appellants' fraud. All the causes of action r......
-
Stockinger v. Zeilberger, No. 3D14–550.
...analysis to determine whether the petitioner had made a prima facie showing of irreparable harm”); Jackson v. Computer Sci. Raytheon, 36 So.3d 754, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“Certiorari jurisdiction does not arise unless the court first establishes irreparable harm.”).The trial court's Order......
-
Stockinger v. Zeilberger, No. 3D14-550
...analysis to determine whether the petitioner had made a prima facie showing of irreparable harm"); Jackson v. Computer Sci. Raytheon, 36 So. 3d 754, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) ("Certiorari jurisdiction does not arise unless the court first establishes irreparable harm."). The trial court's Ord......
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Farhood, No. 1D14–0268.
...Crate & Ice Co. v. Citizens Bank of Inverness, 98 Fla. 186, 192, 123 So. 699, 701 (1929) ; see also Jackson v. Computer Science Raytheon, 36 So.3d 754, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (recitation of rule).The circuit court's frustration with the slow progress of a stale case is certainly understand......