OFFICE OF ATTY. GEN. v. MILLENNIUM COMM. & FULFILLMENT, INC.
| Decision Date | 10 October 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D01-2002.,3D01-2002. |
| Citation | 800 So.2d 255 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | OFFICE OF the ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS, STATE OF FLORIDA, Petitioner, v. MILLENNIUM COMMUNICATIONS & FULFILLMENT, INC., Advance Marketing and Research, Inc., d/b/a First Capital Finance, and Ricardo Martinez, Respondents. |
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and Douglas J. Glaid, Assistant Attorney General, for petitioner.
Mark L. Mallios, Esquire; and Andrew Cove, Hollywood, for respondents.
Before LEVY, SORONDO, and RAMIREZ, JJ.
Rehearing En Banc Denied December 10, 2001.
This is a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to quash a protective order which prevents the petitioner from obtaining discovery. We grant the writ.
The factual background for this petition is more fully set forth in Millennium Communications & Fulfillment, Inc. v. Office of Attorney General, Dept. of Legal Affairs, State of Fla., 761 So.2d 1256 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) ("Millennium I"). The petitioner sued Millennium Communications, Inc. and Advanced Marketing and Research, Inc. (collectively "Millennium") under Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA"), section 501.207(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1997), seeking an injunction, civil penalties and other statutory relief afforded under FDUTPA in connection with Millennium's promotion and sale of a credit card kit. The complaint alleged that consumers received a postcard inviting them to obtain a credit card by calling an "800" telephone number. The petitioner further alleged that only after Millennium collected a $129.00 fee did the consumers learn of the limitations, conditions and restrictions on the original offer. The petitioner sought to enjoin Millennium from engaging in further deceptive practices.
In "Millennium I," this Court held that FDUTPA could be applied to commercial transactions between Florida corporations such as Millennium and non-resident consumers. However, we reversed the temporary injunction because the petitioner had not established a clear legal right to such relief. Upon remand, the petitioner propounded a request for production seeking to determine the nature of Millennium's current activities. Millennium filed an objection and a motion for protective order, alleging: (1) that none of the discovery was probative of whether the original promotional materials were unfair or deceptive; (2) that the Third District, as a matter of law, had ruled that the promotional materials were not unfair or deceptive; and (3) that the discovery placed "an unreasonable burden" upon Millennium. The trial court, after reviewing the appellate record, granted the motion.
While an order denying discovery is not ordinarily reviewable by certiorari, we have occasionally granted certiorari to review orders denying discovery where the injury caused by the order was irreparable. See Ruiz v. Steiner, 599 So.2d 196, 197 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
. We find that the denial of discovery in this case cannot be remedied on appeal after final judgment because "there would be no practical way to determine after judgment what the testimony would be or how it would affect the result." Travelers Indem. Co. v. Hill, 388 So.2d 648, 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); see also Medero v. Florida Power & Light Co., 658 So.2d 566, 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Additionally, the order under review departs from the essential requirements of law because the trial court made no finding and the grounds alleged in the motion for protective order cannot form the basis for denying petitioner the discovery requested.
We reject the first ground alleged-that none of the discovery was probative of whether the original promotional materials were unfair or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bush v. Schiavo
...of depositions generally and orders providing for lengthy postponements of discovery. See Office of Att'y Gen. v. Millennium Communications & Fulfillment, Inc., 800 So.2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Maris Distrib. Co. v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 710 So.2d 1022, 1024-25 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Brennan......
-
Bouchard v. Bouchard, Case No. 2D19-3592
...there is no practical way to determine what her testimony would have been. Cf. Office of Attorney Gen., Dep't of Legal Affairs v. Millennium Commc'ns & Fulfillment, Inc., 800 So. 2d 255, 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (concluding that certiorari review of an order denying discovery was proper becau......
-
Acevedo v. Doctors Hosp. Inc.
...petitioner's motion to compel after erroneously concluding autopsy reports were privileged); Office of Att'y Gen. v. Millennium Commc'ns & Fulfillment, Inc., 800 So.2d 255, 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (granting certiorari and quashing protective order preventing petitioner from obtaining discove......
-
Cavey v. Wells
...to demonstrate good cause warranting the entry of a protective order"); Office of Attorney Gen., Dep't of Legal Affairs, State of Fla. v. Millennium Commc'ns & Fulfillment, Inc., 800 So. 2d 255, 257 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) ("[T]he order under review departs from the essential requirements of law......
-
Certiorari review of nonfinal orders: trying on a functional certiorari wardrobe, Part II.
...(Fla. 3d D.C.A. 2004); Office of the Attorney Gen., Dep't of Legal Affairs, State of Fla. v. Millennium Commc'ns & Fulfillment, Inc., 800 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d D.C.A. (21) Giacalone, 8 So. 3d at 1234. (22) Anderson, 56 So. 3d at 832 (quoting Giacalone, 8 So. 3d at 1234-35)). (23) Fla. R. ......