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.
Dow Corning petitioned to enforce a prior appellate mandate requiring the trial court to reinstate specific discovery protections. The trial court failed to comply, instead substituting alternative safeguards and requiring production of original documents containing privileged information. The appellate court granted the petition and reaffirmed that trial courts lack authority to alter or evade appellate mandates.
The trial court did not comply with the appellate mandate and lacked authority to alter or evade it. Under the rules of evidence, duplicate documents are equally admissible as originals absent questions about authenticity or other specified circumstances, so production of original privileged documents was not required.
[1] A trial court on remand is without authority to alter or evade the mandate of an appellate court absent permission to do so.
[2] A motion to enforce a mandate may be treated as a petition for which jurisdiction may be accepted when a trial court has not complied with the mandate.
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“Absent permission to do so, the trial court on remand is without authority to alter or evade the mandate of this court.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that trial courts cannot modify appellate mandates without authorization.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1982, the trial court issued discovery orders that this court approved as containing sufficient safeguards for work product, trade secrets, and pri…
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 Admissibility Of Duplicates cases and more on FLexlaw
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 petition.
In 1982 the trial court issued two orders compelling discovery. We approved those orders as they contained “sufficient safeguards to protect petitioner from disclosure of work product, trade secrets and other privileged information.” Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner, 423 So. 2d 1034, 1035 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). On February 8, 1983, the trial court changed the 1982 orders by substituting what we previously approved with what it considered an alternative safeguard. We granted Dow Coming’s petition for writ of certiorari and directed the trial court “to enter an order containing the protections previously approved by this court.” Dow Corning Corp., 435 So. 2d at 988. Responding to this court’s mandate and respondents’ motion for a corrective order, the trial court entered an order on October 19, 1983. Instead of reinstating the protections provided in the 1982 orders, the trial court merely added another safeguard to the February 8th order. The trial court’s actions apparently were based on petitioner’s refusal to deface the original documents to be produced and court’s view that the respondents were entitled to the original documents rather than photocopies.
“Absent permission to do so, the trial court on remand is without authority to alter or evade the mandate of this court. Stuart, 381 So. 2d at 1163.
In passing, we address a concern of the trial court and respondents. Under the rules of evidence, duplicates of documents are equally admissible as originals. § 90.-953, Fla.Stat. (1981). Only where there is a question about authenticity, or where the document is a negotiable instrument, a security or a writing evidencing a right to the payment of money, or if for some other reason it would be unfair to admit the duplicate must the original be produced. Id. We fathom no reason why the original documents in the instant case need be produced, especially in light of the privileged matter contained therein.
Since the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in that it did not “enter an order containing the protections previously approved by this court,” Dow Corning Corp., 435 So. 2d at 988, we grant the petition. Again, we direct the trial court to enter an order containing the protections previously approved by this court.
PETITION TO ENFORCE MANDATE GRANTED.
DOWNEY, LETTS and HERSEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Milton v. R.C. Keith, 503 So. 2d 1312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…comes the judgment of the district court). Similarly, once an appellate court affirms an order, judgment or decree, the trial court loses all authority to change, modify, nullify or evade that order, judgment or decree. Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner, 452 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (trial court would be directed to enter an order containing protections previously approved by the district court of appeal); Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 381 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980) (when trial court receives district court of…
-
Nat'l Educ. Ctrs., Inc. v. Ira Kirkland, 678 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)…late court affirms an order, judgment or decree, the trial court loses all authority to change, modify, nullify or evade that order, judgment or decree.” Milton v. Keith, 503 So. 2d 1312, 1313 (Fla.3d DCA 1987); see also Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner, 452 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). “The fact that we did not discuss one of the issues does not mean we did not affirm that issue.” Sloane v. Shane, 625 So. 2d 1236, 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). Additionally, the award of $37,-109.09 in prejudgment interest contrav…
-
Ramsay v. State, 291 So. 3d 963 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…given.”). But we, and our sister courts, have inconsistently disposed of appeals in similar situations. In some cases, a motion to enforce mandate is treated as a new proceeding: a petition to enforce mandate. Dow Corning Corp. v. Garner, 452 So. 2d 1, 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (citing Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 381 So. 2d 1161, 1163 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)). At the same time, two courts have treated a petition for writ of mandamus as a motion to enforce mandate in the original appeal. Hankerson v. Stat…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Frank A. Stuart, M.D. v. The HERTZ Corp., 381 So. 2d 1161 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- DOW Corning Corp. v. Allibert Garner and George M. Garner, 423 So. 2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- DOW Corning Corp. v. Allibert Garner, 435 So. 2d 987 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)