CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD R. MORGAN, APPELLEE
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.
Continental Casualty Company appealed a contempt order and sanctions imposed by the trial court for abuse of the discovery process. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that Continental misled the court by obtaining a stay of a discovery order on promise of compliance, then filing responses stating it had no responsive documents.
The trial court had authority to impose contempt sanctions and attorney fees for abuse of the discovery process based on the party's misconduct in obtaining a stay through promises of compliance and then failing to comply. Civil contempt orders are reviewable under Florida appellate rules.
[1] A trial court's order compelling discovery is reviewable by writ of certiorari.
[2] A party's assurance to opposing counsel and the court that it will comply with a discovery order if certiorari review is denied may form the basis for a finding of contem…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the pattern of behaviour of the Defendant, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, in this matter to constitute contempt of this Court and the Defendant's conduct to be an outrageous abuse of the discovery process”
Trial court's finding that established the basis for the contempt sanction
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellee sued appellant for damages from an accident involving a Honda three-wheeled vehicle. Appellee served a request to produce documentation. Afte…
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 Sanctions For Discovery Abuse cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellee sued appellant for damages arising out of an accident involving a Honda three-wheeled vehicle. During the progress of the suit, appellee served appellant with a request to produce certain documentation. Appellant responded and objected to many of the requests. In due course a hearing was held and the trial court sustained some objections and overruled others. As to the latter, the court’s order directed appellant to comply within thirty days. Instead, appellant filed a petition for writ of certiorari to review that order. In seeking a stay pending the certiorari review, appellant assured opposing counsel and the trial court that, if certiorari was denied, it would comply with the order. Certiorari was denied by this court, and appellant thereafter filed a “Response to Plaintiff’s Request To Produce” in which it answered “None” to all but one of the requests. Whereupon appellee filed a motion for contempt and sanctions based upon Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(b) and the inherent power of the court. After a hearing on said motion the trial court entered the order appealed from, which stated:
"... the pattern of behaviour of the Defendant, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, in this matter to constitute contempt of this Court and the Defendant’s conduct to be an outrageous abuse of the discovery process. Accordingly, this Court imposes upon the Defendant, CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, as a sanction, an assessment of reasonable attorneys fees and reasonable expenses incurred by the Plaintiff for all matters and efforts required of the Plaintiff with respect to the Request to Produce including the Plaintiff’s effort with respect to the Defendant’s petition for Writ of Certiorari. This Court retains jurisdiction to determine the amount of reasonable attorneys fees and expenses at a hearing to be held after notice to the parties.”
Appellant contends that the trial court did not have the authority to hold appellant in contempt for its alleged abuse of the discovery process because there is no provision for finding a party in contempt under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380(d) where the party has filed a response to the request for production in accordance with the court’s order. Appel-lee argues that appellant misled the court when it applied for and obtained a stay of the discovery order on the promise that it would immediately furnish the requested material. Unquestionably, that is the finding of the trial court.
Appellee contends that we are without jurisdiction because civil contempt is not reviewable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C). We reject that contention on authority of Langbert v. Langbert, 409 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), and In Re Estate of Rasmussen, 335 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).
Based upon the record before us, it appears that there is an adequate basis in the record to support the trial court’s finding. Accordingly, we affirm the order appealed from.
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY, HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Amlan, Inc. v. Detroit Diesel Corp., 651 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…e 1.380 provides a panoply of potential remedies for discovery abuses, from monetary sanctions to striking of all or part of a party’s pleadings or defenses. See, e.g., Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983); Continental Casualty Co. v. Morgan, 445 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Watson v. Peskoe, 407 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1981); Ferrante v. Waters, 383 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); AVD Enters.; Agendcias Maritimas Nicaraguenses, S.A. v. Usatorres, 435 So. 2d 247 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Pinakatt v. Merc…
-
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. Strasser, 492 So. 2d 399 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…or the trial court’s imposition of severe sanctions in the instant case. In-. [*402] deed, the trial court cited as authority, in the order granting plaintiffs motion for contempt and sanctions, both Raine and Continental Casualty Company v. Morgan, 445 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). In the latter case, Judge Barkett had granted a motion for contempt and sanctions on a finding of contempt. In that case, after the appellant objected to many of the plaintiff/appellee’s requests to produce, the court held a hea…
-
Stewart v. Mussoline, 487 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…from the order holding Stewart in civil contempt for failing to comply with a discovery order. We decline to follow those cases that reach a contrary re-suit by relying on cases decided under the earlier rule 4.2. Continental Casualty Co. v. Morgan, 445 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Langbert v. Langbert, 409 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); In re Estate of Rasmussen, 335 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Langbert v. Langbert, 409 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- In re Est. of Beatrice S. Rasmussen v. Honorable Edwin Duff, II, 335 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)