JM FAMILY ENTERPRISES, INC. v. Freeman, 4D00-0159.

• Decision Date: 03 May 2000
• Docket Number: No. 4D00-0159.,4D00-0159.
• Citation: 758 So.2d 1175
• Parties: JM FAMILY ENTERPRISES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and World Omni Financial Corp., a Florida corporation, and Southeast Toyota Distributors, Inc., a Florida corporation, Patricia G. Moran, Christine B. Coyle, and Gary Thomas, Petitioners, v. Ross M. FREEMAN and Kelli A. Freeman, Respondents.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

758 So.2d 1175

JM FAMILY ENTERPRISES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and World Omni Financial Corp., a Florida corporation, and Southeast Toyota Distributors, Inc., a Florida corporation, Patricia G. Moran, Christine B. Coyle, and Gary Thomas, Petitioners, v. Ross M. FREEMAN and Kelli A. Freeman, Respondents.

No. 4D00-0159.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 3, 2000.

Daniel F. Katz and Paul B. Gaffney of Williams & Connolly, Washington, D.C., and James S. Bramnick, and Carmen S. Johnson of Muller, Mintz, Kornreich, Caldwell, Casey, Crosland & Bramnick, P.A., Miami, for petitioners.

William R. Amlong and Jennifer Daley of Amlong & Amlong, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners seek review of a non-final order denying their motion to dismiss Respondents' complaint in equity for a pure bill of discovery. We grant the petition.

Respondents filed this complaint against Petitioners-Kelli Freeman's employer, Ross Freeman's former employer, and other persons related to their employment— seeking to discover additional facts before filing the civil action they contemplate filing against them in connection with Ross' being fired from his employment and Kelli's not receiving promotions for which she believes she was qualified. They assert in great detail the bases for their suspicions that they have claims against various of the petitioners, including discrimination based on age, marital status, and religion, defamation, conspiracy, and tortious interference with a business relationship.

Respondents' stated purpose for the pre-suit discovery was to determine whether they have non-frivolous grounds, and which ones, and against which defendants. Petitioners moved to dismiss, noting that both Respondents had already filed discrimination charges against the employers with the Florida Commission on Human Relations and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and arguing that, with the specificity of the claims detailed in the complaint, Respondents do not lack a good faith basis to file a complaint for damages absent the discovery sought in the complaint.

We conclude that if Respondents are entitled to a pure bill of discovery in this case, the same would be available in virtually every case. Respondents' only reason for seeking discovery by means of the pure bill, rather than filing a civil action against Petitioners and then proceeding with discovery in that context, is their reluctance to become exposed to claims for the other parties' attorneys fees in filing a frivolous lawsuit without first determining what, if any, evidence supports their grounds for recovery.

We grant the petition and quash the order denying the motion to dismiss. While we agree that the pure bill of discovery has not been abrogated by the later adoption of liberal rules of discovery, see First Nat'l Bank of Miami v. Dade-Broward Co., 125 Fla. 594, 171 So. 510 (Fla. 1936), we agree with Petitioners that its use should now be relatively rare. "Because state and federal rules of civil procedure have relaxed many of the older code pleading requirements and now authorize liberal discovery, it is rare that a party has need to...