Schering Corp. v. Thornton

• Decision Date: 16 July 1973
• Docket Number: No. 73--118,73--118
• Citation: Schering Corp. v. Thornton, 280 So.2d 493 (Fla. App. 1973)
• Parties: SCHERING CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v. Offa Dean THORNTON et al., Respondents.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 493

280 So.2d 493

SCHERING CORPORATION, a foreign corporation, Petitioner, v.Offa Dean THORNTON et al., Respondents.

No. 73--118.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 16, 1973.

Ronald H. Walker, Orlando, and Edna L. Caruso, of Howell, Kirby, Montgomery, D'Aiuto, Dean & Hallowes, West Palm Beach, for petitioner.

T. G. LaGrone, of LaGrone & Baker, Orlando, for respondentsOffa Dean Thornton and Catherine Thornton, his wife.

OWEN, Chief Judge.

By petition for certiorari one of the defendants in a civil action seeks review of an order denying its motion for protective relief under Rule 1.310(b) RCP, 30 F.S.A.¹

Petitioner is the manufacturer of a drug product marketed under the name of Garamycin.Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that as a result of the use of such drug, plaintiff husband developed ototoxicity.As part of their discovery, plaintiffs filed a motion for an order requiring petitioner to produce for plaintiffs' inspection and copying certain documents and records in the care, custody and control of the petitioner concerning the use of the drug and its effect in the production of ototoxicity in patients using the drug.The motion was granted and the petitioner was ordered to fully comply with the motion within 30 days, with the proviso that should the petitioner have doubt as to whether a particular document was within the scope of the order, petitioner should present same to the court for an in-camera inspection and the court would then make the necessary determination.

Subsequent to the entry of such order petitioner filed a motion for a protective order asserting that the material which it was required to produce consisted of approximately 25,000 pages maintained in seven New Jersey cities, and that the employee manpower required to assemble all of these documents, delete privileged trade secrets, and make copies of the remainder, together with the actual cost of the photocopying process would cost petitioner in excess of an estimated $4,000.00.Alleging that this was unduly oppressive and burdensome, the motion asked that the court require the plaintiff to post adequate bond to indemnify petitioner against such costs, or alternatively require plaintiffs' counsel to inspect such documents and records at their locations in New Jersey.The order denying that motion is the one which petitioner now asks us to review.

The opinion by Judge Carroll in the case of Cooper v. Fulton, Fla.App.1960, 117 So.2d 33, is instructive as to the limitations which ordinarily apply to an order on a motion to producea party's books and records.However, the documentary matter involved in the instant case does not involve the petitioner's books of account or similar records of that nature, and except for the expense and the manpower involved in collecting...