CHRYSLER CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
GERARD F. MILLER, 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.
Chrysler Corporation sought certiorari to quash a discovery order requiring it to produce information about defective vehicles of the same model year nationwide. The court granted the petition, finding the discovery order was unduly burdensome and the trial court improperly relied on unsworn counsel statements rather than sworn evidence when ruling on the discovery dispute.
The court quashed the discovery order because: (1) trial courts may not rely on unsworn statements by counsel as the basis for factual determinations regarding discovery disputes; and (2) a discovery order requiring compliance costs substantially exceeding the apparent value of the underlying lawsuit is not appropriate, particularly when simpler discovery methods could address the core issues.
[1] A trial court may not consider unsworn statements of fact made by counsel in rebuttal to sworn allegations.
[2] Attorneys must provide sworn testimony or obtain a stipulation from the opposing party to establish facts in court.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“[T]he practice we wish to see terminated is that of attorneys making unsworn statements of fact at hearings which trial courts may consider as establishing facts. It is essential that attorneys conduct themselves as officers of the court; but their unsworn statements do not establish facts in the absence of stipulation.”
Establishes that trial courts cannot rely on unsworn counsel statements to establish facts in discovery disputes; sworn testimony or stipulation is required.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Miller purchased a 1981 Dodge Omni that he characterizes as defective. Miller seeks discovery of information about all similar defective ve…
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 Officer Of The Court cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, Judge.
Petitioner seeks certiorari from an order, compelling it to comply with a discovery order. We grant the petition and quash the trial court’s order. The bare record reflects a multi-count action by a purchaser of a 1981 Dodge Omni. As we gather, the Omni was a lemon and respondent wants to know about all of the other lemons bearing the same mark and year which have surfaced throughout the country. He does not allege tragic injuries nor death of anyone but apparently wants whatever relief to which he is entitled because he was sold a piece of junk with an attractive name.
Petitioner submitted an affidavit to the trial court, reflecting a cost to it of $50,000, were it required to comply with the discovery order. Respondent apparently filed no counter-affidavit but instead offered the unsworn analysis of his counsel in rebuttal to the sworn allegations tendered by petitioner. The trial court should not have considered the unsworn analysis by respondent’s counsel. This court, in an opinion written by the present writer, said in Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, Inc. v. Cedar, 423 So. 2d 1015, 1016-17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982):
[T]he practice we wish to see terminated is that of attorneys making unsworn statements of fact at hearings which trial courts may consider as establishing facts. It is essential that attorneys conduct themselves as officers of the court; but their unsworn statements do not establish facts in the absence of stipulation. Trial judges cannot rely upon these unsworn statements as the basis for making factual determinations; and this court cannot so consider them on review of the record. If the advocate wishes to establish a fact, he must provide sworn testimony through witnesses other than himself or a stipulation to which his opponent agrees.
Our companion court concurred in the essence of this expression in Westinghouse Elevator Company v. DFS Construction Company, 438 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
What we are left with is a law suit worth what appears to be considerably less than the cost of compliance by the defendant with the discovery order. While that conceivably could be appropriate in another case, it is not in this one. We cannot help but believe that in a case like the present there are relevant, simple inquiries that can be made without excess cost to get at the heart of the matter. It perplexes us how simple matters can be made unnecessarily complex only to submerge under the excess weight.
DOWNEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Procter & Gamble Co. v. Swilley, 462 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…stablished in Florida is the principle that the unsworn analysis of a party’s attorney and/or a bare assertion of need and undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent insufficient to satisfy this showing. See, e.g., Chrysler Corp. v. Miller, 450 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Nakutis, supra; Cavalere v. Graham, supra. See generally Westinghouse Elevator Co. v. DFS Construction Co., 438 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, Inc. v. Cedar, 423 So. 2…1 / 2
-
Hewitt v. Lymas, 460 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…, he must provide sworn testimony through witnesses other than himself or a stipulation to which his opponent agrees. Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, Inc. v. Cedar, 423 So. 2d 1015, 1016-17 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); see also, Chrysler Corp. v. Miller, 450 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Appellee’s failure to introduce competent evidence or testimony to establish that comparative negligence reduced the full value of his claim requires us to reverse the trial court’s order which awarded appellant less than 100% o…
-
Cogan v. Saleeby, 454 So. 2d 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…ly, the petition for common law certiorari is denied. CERTIORARI DENIED. HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur. . Respondents did not introduce any evidence in support of this assertion. We direct the trial court’s attention to Chrysler Corp. v. Miller, 450 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, Inc. v. Cedar, 423 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Leon Shaffer Golnick Advertising, Inc. v. Cedar, 423 So. 2d 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Westinghouse Elevator Co. v. DFS Constr. Co. & Fed. Ins. Co., 438 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)