HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AND FRANCES M. DAVIN, JERRY BOWMER, FRED ANDERSON, JAN PLATT AND JOE KOTVAS, CONSTITUTING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, PETITIONERS,
v.
PINELLAS COUNTY, A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, 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 discovery into the motive and reasoning of county commissioners is irrelevant absent a claim of fraud, and thus the protective order was properly denied.
Hillsborough County petitioned for common law certiorari after the trial court denied its motion for a protective order to prevent the depositions of …
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 Depositions cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Hillsborough County petitions for common law certiorari to review the order below denying petitioner’s motion for protective order. The motion sought to prevent the taking of the depositions of the individual Hillsborough County commissioners.
Petitioner asserts that because under the rationale of Reedy Creek Utilities Co. v. Florida Public Service Commission, 418 So. 2d 249 (Fla.1982), it will ultimately prevail on the merits, the depositions are unnecessary. Petitioner also asserts that the motive and reasoning of an individual commissioner in voting is irrelevant and therefore discovery into motive is improper. Manatee County v. Estech General Chemicals Corp., 402 So. 2d 75 (Fla.2d DCA 1981).
We assert no opinion as to the ultimate merits of the case. We do note, however, that the motive and reasoning of the county commissioners in casting their votes is irrelevant absent a claim of fraud. Manatee County v. Estech General Chemicals Corp. In the case sub judice, the petitioner does not allege that the sole purpose for the deposition is to examine the motive or reasoning of the individual commissioners. Therefore, discovery may proceed as scheduled as to relevant facts which cannot be ascertained by a reading of the minutes of the county commission meetings, subject to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and CAMPBELL and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miami-Dade Cnty. & Miami-Dade Cnty. Mayor Carlos A. Gimenez v. Dade Cnty. Police Benevolent Ass'n, 103 So. 3d 236 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…ds have concluded, that this Court has jurisdiction to address the petitioners’ writ of certiorari. See Horne, 901 So. 2d at 240; City of Gainesville v. Scotty’s, Inc., 489 So. 2d 1196, 1197 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Hillsborough Cnty. v. Pinellas Cnty., 425 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Manatee Cnty. v. Estech Gen. Chems. Corp., 402 So. 2d 75, 76 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). As we have concluded that the petitioners’ have satisfied the jurisdictional prongs, we next address whether the hearing officer’s order departs fr…
Authorities Cited
- Manatee Cnty. v. Estech Gen. Chems. Corp., 402 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Reedy Creek Utils. Co. v. Fla. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 418 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1982)