GREYHOUND LINES, INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
MAY JACKSON, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF CAPRIDA JACKSON, DECEASED; AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF TARRAH JACKSON, DECEASED, 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.
Florida appellate court granted certiorari and quashed the trial court's order denying a protective order, holding that discovery demands for traffic violations of all bus drivers over three years were unduly burdensome and oppressive without showing necessity.
Discovery demands for traffic violations of all bus drivers over a three-year period are unduly burdensome and oppressive absent a showing of necessity.
[1] Discovery demands that are unduly burdensome and oppressive in time and expense may be restricted by protective order when the requesting party fails to demonstrate neces…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePlaintiff filed a negligence complaint against Greyhound Lines arising from a bus collision caused by an employee. Plaintiff sought production of info…
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 Negligent Operation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
By petition for writ of certiorari, we are asked to review an order of the trial court denying a motion for a protective order as to certain interrogatories propounded by the plaintiff to the defendant. Certiorari is the appropriate vehicle for testing the correctness of an order governing discovery procedures. Malt v. Simmons, 405 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). However, certiorari will be granted only where the order of the trial court is a departure from the essential requirements of law and there would be no adequate remedy by appeal. Everglades Protective Syndicate, Inc. v. Makinney, 391 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
In the instant case, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the petitioner for the negligent operation of its bus by one of its employees which resulted in a collision. The requested production demands information concerning traffic violations committed by each and every one of all the defendant’s bus drivers operating in Florida for a three year period. The expenditure of time and money required for this endeavor is burdensome and oppressive and we believe the respondents have failed to show a necessity justifying such discovery. See Slatnick v. Leadership Housing Systems, Inc., 368 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979), and North Miami General Hospital v. Royal Palm Beach Colony, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Accordingly, we grant the writ, quash the trial court’s order and direct the trial court to strike the objectionable interrogatories and to expunge them from the record.
DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur. HURLEY, J., dissents without opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)…CA), cert. denied, 143 So. 2d 492 (1962). Orders granting discovery, on the other hand, have traditionally been reviewed by certiorari. See e.g., Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley, 462 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Jackson, 445 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Boucher v. Pure Oil Co., 101 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957). The rationale of these cases is that appeal after final judgment is unlikely to be an adequate remedy because once discovery is wrongfully granted, the complaining par…
-
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley, 462 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…iscovery orders may be reviewed by writ of certiorari. We agree. Non-final orders that permit discovery are a classic example of the type of interlocutory order that may be reviewed by writ of certiorari. See, e.g., Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Jackson, 445 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); City of Williston v. Roadlander, 425 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Marine Investment Co. v. Van Voorhis, 162 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964). As stated in Boucher v. Pure Oil Co., 101 So. 2d 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 1957) (after noti…
-
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co., 515 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)…d Hartford’s request to stay the effect of the discovery order pending review by this court. A petition for writ of certiorari is the appropriate vehicle for testing the correctness of an order governing discovery. Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Jackson, 445 So. 2d 1107, 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Gadsden County Times, Inc. v. Home, 426 So. 2d 1234, 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 441 So. 2d 631 (Fla.1983); Malt v. Simmons, 405 So. 2d 1018, 1018-19 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). While certiorari may be used to obtain revi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Pezzella, 397 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- The Everglades Protective Syndicate, Inc. v. Makinney, 391 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Malt v. Simmons, 405 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Murray Slatnick and Elsie Slatnick v. Leadership Hous. Sys. OF Fla., Inc., 368 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)