Magid v. Winter
| Decision Date | 17 May 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-3710,94-3710 |
| Citation | 654 So.2d 1037 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 20 Fla. L. Weekly D1181 Allen MAGID, Petitioner, v. Elliot C. WINTER, Lori D. Winter, Jem Lighting, Inc., and Philip Magid, Respondents. |
Jeffrey A. Sarrow of Jeffrey A. Sarrow, P.A., Plantation, for petitioner.
Murray E. Shepard of Shepard, Leskar & Levine, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for respondents Elliot C. Winter and Lori D. Winter.
Petitioner, Allen Magid (Allen), has filed a petition for writ of certiorari alleging that a trial court order granting the respondents' motion to compel violates his privilege against self-incrimination. Because we find that the order in question departs from the essential requirements of law thus causing Allen material injury without an effective remedy on appeal, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court order compelling discovery.
Allen is one of three defendants in a suit commenced by Elliot and Lori Winter. The Winters' suit sought to collect $140,000 pursuant to a promissory note allegedly executed by each of the defendants. The promissory note in question was signed by Philip Magid, Allen's brother, although Philip denies signing the note.
During discovery, the Winters' counsel attempted to depose Allen. However, during questioning, Allen refused to answer questions relating to his business activities, the holders of the promissory note, the signatures on the promissory note, and the note itself. According to Allen, he refused to answer these questions because of his reasonable belief that they would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove that he committed forgery by signing Philip's name to the promissory note. Thereafter, the Winters filed a motion to compel/motion for contempt and sanctions. This motion was ultimately granted by the trial court thereby requiring Allen to answer all questions posed to him during the deposition.
The privilege against self-incrimination may be asserted during discovery if the litigant has reasonable grounds to believe that answers to questions posed would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against him. Rainerman v. Eagle Nat'l Bank of Miami, 541 So.2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). "It need not be probable that a criminal prosecution will be brought or that the witness's answer will be introduced in a later prosecution; the witness need only show a realistic possibility that the answers will be used against him." Meek v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 458 So.2d 412, 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (quoting Pillsbury Co. v. Conboy, 459 U.S. 248, 266 n. 1, 103 S.Ct. 608, 619, n. 1, 74 L.Ed.2d 430, 445-46 n. 1 (1983)). A trial court may properly require a witness to answer questions only if it is perfectly clear that the witness is mistaken in his apprehensions and the answers cannot possibly have a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aguila v. Frederic
...a later prosecution; the witness need only show a realistic possibility that the answers will be used against him." Magid v. Winter, 654 So. 2d 1037, 1039 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Accordingly, in analyzing an assertion of constitutional privilege, "it need only be evident from the implications ......
-
Boyle v. Buck, 4D03-4134.
...case over an objection that the order violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. See, e.g., Magid v. Winter, 654 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). The reviewing court must determine whether the trial court's discovery order departed from the essential requirements of l......
-
McKay v. Great American Ins. Co.
...Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination." Boyle v. Buck, 858 So.2d 391, 392 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (citing Magid v. Winter, 654 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)). The reviewing court must determine whether the trial court's discovery order departed from the essential requirements of......
-
Magbanua v. State
...to answer all deposition questions violates the witness's constitutional rights against self-incrimination, Magid v. Winter , 654 So.2d 1037, 1038-39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) ; J.R. Brooks & Son, Inc. v. Donovan , 592 So.2d 795, 796 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992), so too can a judicial order denying a crimi......
-
Discovery and use of experts
...to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege was premature, where that party had not yet invoked privilege at deposition); Magid v. Winter, 654 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)(upon civil litigant’s assertion of Fifth Amendment privilege not to answer deposition questions, trial court was require......
-
Privileges
...of the Fifth Amendment is not sufficient. Fischer v. E.F. Hutton & Co., Inc., 463 So.2d 289 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Magid v. Winter , 654 So.2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Brestle v. Bluewater Tradegroup, Inc. , 860 So.2d 528 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Protects testimony or communicative evidence only.......