Roberts v. Jardine
| Decision Date | 10 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-474,78-474 |
| Parties | Mae ROBERTS, Petitioner, v. Patricia JARDINE, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
W. Donald Cox of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, Tampa, for petitioner.
E. Clinch Kavanaugh, III of Smythe & Kavanaugh, Bradenton, for respondent.
Petitioner seeks review of two orders of the trial court which compel discovery, arguing the orders are in violation of her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. We agree with her in part and grant certiorari, reversing one order and affirming the other.
At the bottom of this controversy is respondent's claim that petitioner had made a tape recording of a certain telephone conversation between the parties without respondent's knowledge. Mr. William J. Terry, petitioner's attorney in a previous action, played this recording during a deposition of respondent in said action in which petitioner was the plaintiff and the respondent was a witness. Upon learning of the existence of the tape, respondent filed a civil action for damages alleging that petitioner had intercepted their telephone conversation by means of an electronic or mechanical device in violation of Section 934.10, Florida Statutes (1977).
Thereafter, respondent served interrogatories on petitioner inquiring into the circumstances surrounding the alleged interception of the telephone call. Petitioner refused to answer these interrogatories on the ground that any answer she gave might incriminate her.
Respondent also served petitioner with a request for documents and other related things in which she specifically asked for a copy of the tape recording referred to above as well as any other recordings of conversations between respondent, petitioner and/or William J. Terry. Petitioner also did not comply with this request.
Subsequently, on motion of respondent, the trial court entered two orders compelling discovery. In the first order the court required petitioner to answer interrogatories and stated that if she failed to answer the court might enter a default judgment. In the second order the court directed petitioner to comply with the request for discovery or suffer a default judgment.
We think that the trial court erred in entering its order compelling petitioner to answer interrogatories on pain of the entry of a default judgment. As petitioner correctly points out, the interception of telephone conversations by electronic or mechanical means carries a criminal as well as a civil penalty. Section 934.03, Florida Statutes (1977). Accordingly, the court cannot compel petitioner to answer respondent's interrogatories as the answers relating to her alleged interception of the telephone conversation might incriminate her. U.S.Const. Amend. V; Article I, Section 9, Florida Constitution. Moreover, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of St. Petersburg v. Houghton
...court has dealt with a Defendant's right to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination in a civil action. See Roberts v. Jardine, 358 So.2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). However, here we are confronted with the question of the Plaintiff's right to invoke the Fifth Amendment privilege in a ci......
-
Commitment of Smith v. State
...sanctions, such as striking of pleadings or defenses, barring the testimony of the person claiming the privilege, see Roberts v. Jardine, 358 So.2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), or the possibility of incarceration.6 See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.380. A blanket denial of Mr. Smith's claim of privilege aga......
-
Zabrani v. Riveron
...the support order. There was no fifth amendment violation, and the contempt judgment and sentence were affirmed. Cf. Roberts v. Jardine, 358 So.2d 588 (Fla.2d DCA 1978) (defendant could not be compelled upon pain of default to answer interrogatories which would incriminate her, though her t......
-
Waskin v. Waskin, 84-371
...defense herein and yet claim his fifth amendment privilege on a critical question concerning that defense. See Roberts v. Jardine, 358 So.2d 588, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). We find no merit in the remaining contentions of the respondent. The contempt judgment and sentence under review are Affi......
-
Privileges
...However, the entry of a default judgment for the invocation of that privilege has been held to be inappropriate. Roberts v. Jardine , 358 So.2d 588 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). When moving party seeks to invoke privilege. Where the party seeking to invoke the privilege is the moving party in the civ......
-
Defamation & privacy
...as the answers relating to her alleged interception of the telephone conversation might incriminate her. Roberts v. Jardine , 358 So.2d 588, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978), appeal after remand , 366 So.2d 124 (Fla. 1979). 3. Legislative Intent: Hence, the Florida act evinces a greater concern for t......