WILLIAM VICTOR GRUMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, A NEW YORK CORPORATION, RESPONDENT
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.
The court held that an interrogatory seeking information about all bank accounts is overbroad when the funds' personal use is conceded and relevance is not shown.
Petitioner sought certiorari review of an order compelling him to answer an interrogatory about his bank accounts. The respondent conceded that petiti…
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 Conversion cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Judge.
The petitioner, who is the counter-defendant below in an action for the conversion of a vessel, seeks certiorari review of an order requiring that he answer an interrogatory which asked for information as to every bank account in which he held an interest. Gruman has unequivocally conceded before us in open court that he utilized the funds received for the property in question, some $140,000, for his own personal benefit.1 Particularly in the light of this stipulation, the interrogatory before us is substantially overbroad in that, without a showing of even potential relevance to the issues in the case, it seeks personal financial information of.a type ordinarily discoverable only in aid of execution after judgment has been entered. See Cooper v. Fulton, 117 So. 2d 33, 35-36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960); cf. Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So. 2d 1169 (Fla.1979);2 Leonhardt v. Cammack, 327 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), cert. denied, 339 So. 2d 1167 (Fla.1976). Therefore, we grant the petition and quash the order under review. We do so, however, specifically without prejudice (a) to the respondent’s right to discover the manner by which Gruman disposed of the particular funds in issue,3 and (b) to further discovery, if it becomes appropriate, as to punitive damages4 or.in aid of execution.
Certiorari granted.
. He contends that the only remaining issue below on the merits is whether he had the authority to sell the vessel on his own behalf.
. The respondent makes no contention that, as in Tennant, the information is discoverable on the ground that it is pertinent to the issue of punitive damages.
. Evidence, for example, that he attempted to secrete the moneys would be pertinent on the substantive issue of his right to dispose of the vessel. See Helton v. State, 135 Fla. 458, 185 So. 864 (1938); Long v. State, 11 Fla. 295 (1866).
. See note 2, supra; Tennant v. Charlton, supra.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kenneth Friedman, M.D. v. Heart Inst. OF Port ST. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2003)…and protecting litigants’ privacy and equitable interests. While the general rule in Florida is that personal financial information is ordinarily discoverable only in aid of execution after judgment has been entered, see Gruman v. Bankers Trust Co., 379 So. 2d 658, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Cooper v. Fulton, 117 So. 2d 33, 35-36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960), where materials sought by a party “would appear to be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action,” the information is fully discoverable. Epstein v. Epstei…
-
Capco Props., LLC. v. Monterey Gardens OF Pinecrest Condo., 982 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…information is ordinarily discoverable only in aid of execution after judgment; however where materials sought by a party appear relevant to subject matter of pending action, information is fully discoverable). See also Gruman v. Bankers Trust Co., 379 So. 2d 658, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (quashing an order requiring that the defendant respond to discovery requests with respect to financial information, because “without a showing of even potential relevance to the issues in the case, [the discovery requests se…1 / 2
-
Chetu, Inc. v. Ko Gaming, Inc., 261 So. 3d 605 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)…. 2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)). But if it is not relevant to the pending action, that balance precludes the discovery of personal financial information unless it is in aid of execution after judgment. Id. (citing Gruman v. Bankers Tr. Co., 379 So. 2d 658, 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Cooper v. Fulton, 117 So. 2d 33, 35-36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)). KO Gaming hired Chetu to provide computer software programing services in exchange for an hourly rate. Chetu claims KO Gaming did not pay for services render…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1979)
- Long v. Florida, 11 Fla. 295 (Fla. 1867)
- Rachelle Enters., Inc. v. City OF Miami Beach, 117 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Helton v. State, 135 Fla. 458 (Fla. 1938)
- Leonhardt v. Cammack, 327 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)