DOW CORNING CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
ALLIBERT GARNER, KENNETH L. WINSLOW, ET AL., 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.
The court held that the trial court's order eliminating discovery safeguards departed from the essential requirements of law, warranting certiorari.
The trial court issued an order modifying discovery safeguards previously approved by the appellate court. The petitioner sought protection from discl…
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 Privileged Information cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Our opinion in Dow Corning Corporation v. Garner, 423 So. 2d 1034, 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), an earlier appearance before us of the instant case contained the following:
We find the orders compelling discovery contain sufficient safeguards to protect petitioner from disclosure of work product, trade secrets, and other privileged information.
In that case petitioner sought protection in discovery proceedings from (1) being required to produce documents alleged to be subject to certain privileges and (2) being required to bear the expense of production and copying. By its subsequent order of February 8, 1983, the trial court conditioned production upon the posting of bonds. The ultimate assessment of discovery costs was to be upon motion. Petitioner here questions the adequacy of the bonds. We find that certiorari is not an appropriate method of questioning the amount of the bonds because such a defect does not constitute a showing of irreparable harm not remediable upon plenary appeal.
The order of February 8, 1983, goes further, however, and eliminates (by substituting alternative methods) the very safeguards for production that we examined and approved in the earlier case. To that extent the order departs from our mandate and thus constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law.
We therefore grant certiorari and direct the trial court to enter an order containing the protections previously approved by this court. Because this may result in added costs of production the trial court may wish to reconsider the amounts of bonds required for the various categories of documents to be produced although we do not imply that the present amounts are either sufficient or insufficient.
CERTIORARI GRANTED.
DOWNEY, LETTS and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DOW Corning Corp. v. Allibert Garner, 452 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Dow Corning Corporation has filed a Motion to Enforce Mandate, said mandate having been issued by this court in Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner, 435 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). We treat the motion as a petition and accept jurisdiction since the trial court did not comply with the mandate of this court. See Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 381 So. 2d 1161, 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). Accordingly, we grant the petit…
Authorities Cited
- DOW Corning Corp. v. Allibert Garner and George M. Garner, 423 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)