CENTRAL FLORIDA SKATES, INC., D/B/A SUN STATE ROLLER RINK, AND EMPIRE FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONERS,
v.
VALERIE A. THOMAS, RESPONDENT
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Privileged Information cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Central Florida Skates, Inc., and its insurer, Empire Fire and Marine Insurance Co., seek review by certiorari1 of an interlocutory order, dated October 19,1980, compelling production of the insurer’s entire underwriting file. The file contains information which is either irrelevant to the respondent’s action or privileged and which is therefore not discoverable. Production of the discoverable information within the insurer’s file is directed by Paragraph 3(a) of the order.
Therefore, the writ is granted and Paragraph (3)(c) of the order compelling production is quashed. Nothing in this opinion shall prohibit the trial judge from viewing, in camera, the underwriting file pertaining to the roller rink and requiring the disclosure of the properly discoverable portions of that file, should respondent make proper application therefor. DAUKSCH, C. J., and SHARP, J., concur. . Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.030(b)(2)(A). See also Haddad, Certiorari in Florida, 29 U.Fla.L.Rev. 207, 224 n. 133, et seq. (1977).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
E. Colonial Refuse Serv., Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)…405 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Palmer v. Servis, 393 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). See generally W. Haddad, The Common Law Writ of Certiorari in Florida, 49 U.Fla.L.Rev. 207, 220 (1977). . See, e.g., Central Florida Skates, Inc. v. Thomas, 393 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 402 So. 2d 608 (Fla.1981). . In applying these principles to the instant case, only the first two counts of the complaint need be considered. Items possibly relevant to an accounting are not discoverable until the rig…
-
Powell v. Wingard, 402 So. 2d 532 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…lating to discovery matters is most appropriate when used to review orders allegedly improperly compelling discovery. See, e. g., Insurance Company of North America v. Noya, 398 So. 2d 836 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Central Florida Skates, Inc. v. Thomas, 393 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Palmer v. Servis, 393 So. 2d 653 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); State v. Dolen, 390 So. 2d 407 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). As to certiorari and interlocutory orders generally, see The Hawaiian Inn of Daytona Beach, Inc. v. Snead Construction Cor…