ROGELIO MEDEL, PETITIONER,
v.
REPUBLIC NATIONAL BANK OF MIAMI, A NATIONAL BANKING CORPORATION; ROBERT PAUL, BURTON A. LANDY, STANLEY ARTHUR BEILEY AND JAMES E. YACOS, D/B/A PAUL, LANDY, BEILEY & YACOS, A PARTNERSHIP; AND MICHAEL STRIAR, 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.
A Florida appellate court quashed a trial court's order denying a motion to compel discovery of defendants' financial information in a case where the plaintiff sought punitive damages for conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The court held that absent demonstrated good cause for a protective order, a trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to compel financial discovery when the plaintiff has submitted factual support for a punitive damages claim.
The trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to compel. When a plaintiff submits factual support for a punitive damages claim and the defendants have not demonstrated good cause for a protective order, the trial court must compel production of financial information needed to assess the defendants' ability to pay punitive damages.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to compel discovery of financial information when a plaintiff has submitted factual support for a punitive damages…
[2] In cases seeking punitive damages, a trial court may consider whether an actual factual basis exists for an award of punitive damages when determining if a motion for a p…
Previewing 2 of 4 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“In determining whether defendants' motion for protective order under rule 1.280(c) is "for good cause shown," the trial court may consider, among other things, whether or not an actual factual basis exists for an award of punitive damages.”
Establishes the standard for trial courts to balance discovery rights against protective orders in punitive damages cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Medel, as plaintiff below, sought punitive damages against respondents (a law firm and its partners, plus an individual defendant) for conv…
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 Punitive Damages Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, plaintiff below, seeks punitive damages against respondents, alleging conversion and intentional infliction of emotional distress. In reply to petitioner’s request for production of detailed financial data, respondents Paul, Landy and Beiley, doing business as a law firm of that name, and James Yacos, provided an affidavit to the effect that the firm’s partners' capital account held a balance in excess of $250,000. Motion to compel production of the requested documents was denied. This petition for certiorari review ensued.1
The Florida Supreme Court has recently ruled upon the scope of discovery where punitive damages are sought:
[T]he trial court should always be sensitive to the protection of a party from harassment and from an overly burdensome inquiry. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(c) provides that for good cause shown, the trial court may make any order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense that justice requires. The trial court should keep in mind that in most punitive damages cases, at the time plaintiffs are seeking discovery of defendants’ financial resources, there has not yet been a judicial determination of the defendants’ liability. If plaintiffs were allowed unlimited discovery of defendants’ financial resources in cases where there is no actual factual basis for an award of punitive damages, the personal and private financial affairs of defendants would be unnecessarily exposed and, in some cases, the threat of such exposure might be used by unscrupulous plaintiffs to coerce settlements from innocent defendants. In determining whether defendants’ motion for protective order under rule 1.280(c) is “for good cause shown,” the trial court may consider, among other things, whether or not an actual factual basis exists for an award of punitive damages.
Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So. 2d 1169, 1170 (Fla.1979).
Thus, upon petitioner’s submittal of factual support for a punitive damages claim, and in the absence of demonstrated good cause for a protective order, the trial court abused its discretion by its denial of petitioner’s Motion to Compel. Sun Bank of Miami v. Johnson, 380 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). See, Ortiz v. Ortiz, 194 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967); Parker v. Parker, 182 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966), quoted approvingly in Orlowitz v. Orlowitz, 199 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1967). Gf. Gruman v. Bankers Trust Co., 379 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Alterman v. Alterman, 361 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. denied 368 So. 2d 1361 (Fla.1979).
We therefore quash the Order of the trial court denying the Motion to Compel Production.
. Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(2)(A) and 9.030(b)(3).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Citibank, N.A. v. Plapinger, 461 So. 2d 1027 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…id of execution of a judgment entered against the respondent. Just as clearly, the documents sought are reasonably likely to disclose such assets. See Tennant v. Charlton, [*1028] 377 So. 2d 1169 (Fla.1979); Medel v. Republic National Bank of Miami, 388 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Donahue v. Hebert, 355 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Thus, there being no claim that the respondent needed protection from harassment or an overly burdensome inquiry, or the like, the documents were discoverable. The trial cou…
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Chillura, 952 So. 2d 547 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…n times during the pretrial period. We review the trial court’s denial of the motion for an abuse of discretion. See Rollins Burdick Hunter of N.Y., Inc. v. Euroclassics Ltd., 502 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Medel v. Republic Nat’l Bank of Miami, 388 So. 2d 327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980). After reviewing this record, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion, and we affirm the trial court’s decision. In summary, we conclude that the trial court was correct to find coverag…
Authorities Cited
- Orlowitz v. Ellis K. Orlowitz, 199 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 1967)
- Parker v. Parker, 182 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966)
- Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1979)
- Gruman v. Bankers Tr. Co., 379 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Arthur v. Cristol, 361 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Alterman v. Alterman, 361 So. 2d 773 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Ortiz v. Ortiz, 194 So. 2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- SUN Bank OF Miami v. Johnson, 380 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Lopez v. State, 380 So. 2d 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)