Mathews v. Kant, 82-771
| Decision Date | 04 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-771,82-771 |
| Citation | 427 So.2d 369 |
| Parties | Lawrence A. MATHEWS, Jr. and Elizabeth L. Mathews, his wife, Appellants, v. James KANT, a resident of New York, Bernard House and Bernard R. House, his son, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Peter H. Dubbeld of Watson, Goldstein & Dubbeld, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellants.
Robert H. Dillinger of Stolba, Lumley & Dillinger, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellees.
A court may not quash a subpoena issued pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.410(b) unless the subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive and by necessary implication, there must be some facts before the court tending to show the unreasonableness and oppressiveness of the subpoena. The sufficiency thereof is a factual determination for the trial judge who is vested with broad judicial discretion in the matter, and whose order will not be overturned absent a clear showing of abuse of discretion.
We cannot say as a matter of law that the court abused its discretion in finding (impliedly) that the subpoena was unreasonable and oppressive. See Stowe v. Shults, 379 So.2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980), and Sunrise Shopping Center, Inc. v. Allied Stores Corp., 270 So.2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferrandino v. Riley
...the treatment of discovery problems through the employment of the protective provisions contemplated by rule 1.280."); Mathews v. Kant , 427 So.2d 369, 370 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983) (requiring "some facts before the court tending to show the unreasonableness and oppressiveness" to support the quas......
-
Subpoenas duces tecum vs. HIPAA: which wins?
...of the trial judge and a trial court's order will not be overturned absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion. Matthews v. Cant, 427 So. 2d 369 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Sunrise Shopping Center, Inc. v. Allied Stores Corp., 270 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972). Another ground for quashing a......