NATIONAL CONVENIENCE STORES, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
ROBERT EMBREY AND HELEN J. EMBREY, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
National Convenience Stores sought review of a discovery order requiring it to answer interrogatories about employee claims denied under its group medical benefits plan. The court held that while some discovery regarding Helen Embrey's eligibility might be relevant, the interrogatory as written was overbroad and sought information beyond the permissible scope of discovery, and therefore the trial court abused its discretion in compelling the response.
The court held that the interrogatory was overbroad and sought information beyond the permissible scope of discovery. While information about employees denied coverage due to insufficient employment time might be relevant to the pending lawsuit, the interrogatory as written sought all rejected claims regardless of reason, much of which had no relevance to the litigation.
[1] Discovery rules are to be liberally construed, and trial courts possess broad discretion in discovery matters.
[2] A trial court's discretion in discovery matters must be exercised within the permissible scope of discovery.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Although liberal construction is to be given to rules of discovery and trial courts are imbued with broad discretion in discovery matters, such discretion must be exercised within the permissible scope of discovery as set forth in Rule 1.280(b), Fla. R.Civ.P.”
Establishes the standard for reviewing discovery orders—while courts have broad discretion, it must remain within permissible scope.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHelen Embrey, an employee of National Convenience Stores (NCS), sought reimbursement for medical treatment, claiming coverage under NCS's self-insured…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Scope Of Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
National Convenience Stores, Inc. seeks through petition for writ of certiorari re view of an order requiring petitioner to answer a certain written interrogatory in an action to determine the availability of employee group medical benefits.
Robert Embrey and Helen J. Embrey were the named defendants in a suit filed by a hospital and a doctor to recover payments for treatment rendered to Helen Em-brey. At the time of the treatment, Helen Embrey was an employee of National Convenience Stores, Inc. (hereinafter NCS) who, as a self-insurer, maintained a group medical benefits insurance plan for its qualified employees. Helen Embrey filed a cross-claim against NCS alleging that she was covered under the group benefit program. NCS answered and denied that benefits were owed under the program for Helen Embrey’s condition, due to the fact that she had not been an employee for a sufficient length of time to qualify under the group plan.
For purposes of discovery, Helen Embrey filed written interrogatories to NCS, which included the following question:
20. a) Please state how many claims have ever been filed against NATIONAL CONVENIENCE STORES, INC. by employees seeking benefits.
b) Please state how many of such claims have been denied.
c) Please state the names and addresses of all persons whose claims have been denied by NATIONAL CONVENIENCE STORES, INC., and the reason for denial of each.
NCS filed an objection to this interrogatory on the ground that it was not material or relevant, nor could it lead to any competent evidence. A hearing was held at which the trial court ordered NCS to answer the quoted interrogatory. The instant petition for writ of certiorari was then filed to challenge the propriety of that order. Although liberal construction is to be given to rules of discovery and trial courts are imbued with broad discretion in discovery matters, such discretion must be exercised within the permissible scope of discovery as set forth in Rule 1.280(b), Fla. R.Civ.P. See Argonaut Insurance Co. v. Peralta, 358 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Hoogland v. Dollar Land Corp., Ltd., 330 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).
Certiorari will lie to review an abuse of discretion in discovery matters where irreparable injury will accrue as a result of undue infringement upon the privacy rights of persons unconnected to the litigation. American Health Plan, Inc. v. Kostner, 367 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
In the instant case there is no showing that all the information sought by the challenged interrogatory is or would be relevant to the pending lawsuit. Respondent correctly points out that information as to those employees of NCS who have been denied coverage under the group benefit program because of insufficient employment time might prove to be relevant. However, the challenged interrogatory is not so limited in scope but, rather, seeks discovery of information of all claims made by employees which were rejected for any reason. In this posture, the challenged interrogatory is overbroad and seeks information which has no relevance whatsoever to the pending litigation. Thus, the information sought is beyond the permissible scope of discovery, and the trial court should have sustained the objection and denied respondents’ motion to compel.
Accordingly, we grant certiorari and quash that portion of the lower court’s order compelling discovery which requires petitioner to respond to Interrogatory No. 20 propounded March 8, 1978, and remand for further proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.
Certiorari granted, and cause remanded.
DOWNEY, C. J., BERANEK, J., and CROSS, SPENCER C., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Weyant v. Rawlings, 389 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)…ought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The discovery rules are to be liberally construed so as to permit any form of discovery within the scope of the rules. National Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Embrey, 375 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Argonaut Insurance Co. v. Peralta, 358 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 364 So. 2d 889 (Fla.1978). At the hearing on the motion to compel, Rawlings argued that the questions objected to were improper due to petitioner’s…
-
Mazda Motor Corp. v. Quinn, 524 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…wens-Illinois, Inc. v. Hoagland, 499 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Petrin, 497 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Hessey, 421 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); National Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Embrey, 375 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). After considerable study of the voluminous pleadings, interrogatories, and cited authorities, we are convinced that the trial court, by declining to sustain Mazda’s objections to some interrogatories and failing to limit certai…
-
Century Bus. Credit Corp. v. Fitness Innovations & Techs., Inc., 906 So. 2d 1156 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…terprets TIG to mean that any failure to file a privilege log constitutes a waiver as a matter of law, an interpretation we did not intend. On the contrary, trial courts have discretion in discovery matters. Nat’l Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Embrey, 375 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979) and cases cited. It follows that a finding of waiver for failure to file a proper privilege log, which is a violation of rule 1.280(b)(5), involves the exercise of discretion.1 Petitioner relies heavily on Bankers Security Ins…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Peralta, 358 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Am. Health Plan, Inc. v. Tully Kostner, 367 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Hoogland v. Dollar Land Corp., Ltd., 330 So. 2d 509 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)