WILLIAM RANDOLPH KLEIN, PETITIONER,
v.
JAY M. LANCER, 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 certain discovery requests were overbroad and irrelevant, but the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the scope of a deposition.
[1] Discovery requests must be relevant to the subject matter of the pending action or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
[2] A trial court has discretion to limit the scope of discovery when requests are overbroad or irrelevant.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner sued respondent for slander, seeking damages for harm to business reputation and profits. Petitioner sought review of orders compelling dis…
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 Relevance In Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, who is the plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an order which granted respondent’s motions to (1) compel discovery and (2) limit petitioner’s ability to proceed with respondent’s deposition until petitioner was first deposed. Petitioner contends that the answers requested and the materials sought by the discovery are too broad and, further, oppressive. As to the trial judge limiting petitioner’s ability to proceed to depose respondent, petitioner contends the trial judge had no authority to make such a ruling.
Petitioner brought a slander action against respondent and claimed damages to his business reputation and a loss of esteem, reputation and profits.
Although the general nature of the alleged slander and alleged damages here makes for a wide scope of inquiry into petitioner’s past conduct, we find that portions of the inquiry permitted by the court transcend even that broad boundary. We find merit in petitioner’s argument that certain materials in the notice to produce compelled by the order are overbroad and irrelevant. Nowhere in the record is there a showing that the item numbers listed below are “relevant to the subject matter of the pending action ... [or] ... appear(s) reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(1); Equifax Corp. v. Cooper, 380 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980).
Accordingly, that portion of the order compelling production of items numbered 8, 14,15,16, 25, 30, 36, 37, 38, 39 and 40 listed in the notice to produce departed from the essential requirements of law.
The trial judge did not abuse the discretion granted to him by Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.380(a)(2) and 1.280(c) when he limited petitioner’s ability to proceed in deposing respondent. Because that is so, there was no departure from the essential requirements of law in that respect.
The petition for certiorari is granted in part and the order under review is quashed as to the above specified items. The cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
OTT, C.J., and DANAHY and CAMPBELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Klein v. Lancer, 440 So. 2d 657 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…attorney) would violate the attorney-client privilege. This court previously granted a petition for certiorari in this case and held that certain materials requested in respondent’s notice to produce were overbroad and irrelevant. Klein v. Lancer, 436 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). There is now apparently some doubt by the parties and the trial court as to whether further limitation of discovery by the trial court on the grounds of attorney-client privilege is foreclosed by this court’s previous opinion dea…
Authorities Cited
- Equifax Corp. v. The Honorable Richard H. Cooper, 380 So. 2d 514 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)