WALTER D. DICKINSON, INDIVIDUALLY, AND WALTER DICKINSON, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
CLYDE N. WELLS, JR., 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 the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the defendants to answer interrogatories seeking their opinions on how to secure their services.
Plaintiff sued real estate brokers for breach of fiduciary duty. During discovery, plaintiff served interrogatories asking defendants for their opinio…
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 Scope Of Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
MILLS, Judge.
Wells filed suit against Walter D. Dickinson, Inc. and Walter D. Dickinson, individually, seeking to have the defendants adjudged constructive trustees of certain property and seeking to have the defendants convey title to the property to him. Wells alleged the defendants breached their fiduciary relationship as real estate brokers to their client, Wells. The defendants say Wells never engaged their services and that no confidential or fiduciary relationship was ever established.
During the course of pretrial discovery, Wells propounded interrogatories to the defendants which, in essence, asked the defendants what, in their opinion, one would have to do to secure the services and become a client of the defendants. The defendants objected to the interrogatories.
After a hearing, the trial judge issued an order overruling the objections and giving defendants 20 days to answer the interrogatories. The defendants invoke the certiorari jurisdiction of this court seeking to have the order quashed.
Orders relating to the scope of discovery are within the wide discretion of the trial court and should not be overturned absent departure from the essential requirements of law. Burroughs Corp. v. White Lumber Sales, Inc., 372 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979).
The interrogatories in question do not seek the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of petitioners’ counsel, but only the opinions of petitioners. The interrogatories therefore do not violate Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(2). As stated in Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.340(b), “An interrogatory otherwise proper is not objectionable merely because an answer to the interrogatory involves an opinion or contention that relates to fact or calls for a conclusion or asks for information not within the personal knowledge of the party.”
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
BOOTH and BARFIELD, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund v. Escambia Cnty., 585 So. 2d 461 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…e of justice.” Id. (Emphasis added). We note that orders relating to the scope of discovery are within the “wide discretion” of the trial court and should not be overturned absent departure from the essential requirements of law. Dickinson v. Wells, 454 So. 2d 758, 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). Further, the burden is upon the party asserting a privilege to establish the existence of each element of the privilege in question. Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 501.1 (2d Ed.1984). The trial court granted Escambia County’…
-
Rollins Burdick Hunter OF NEW York, Inc. v. Euroclassics Ltd., Inc., 502 So. 2d 959 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)
-
Suburban Propane v. The Est. OF Ralph Pitcher, 564 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…as filed, i.e., the right of the decedent’s dependent spouse and children to be compensated with death benefits. Accordingly, taking into account the broad discretion afforded trial judges in ordering discovery, see, for example, Dickinson v. Wells, 454 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), I cannot find that petitioner has. made any showing which would suggest that the judge below departed from the essential requirements of law in ordering discovery of the items which petitioner now seeks to have protected from di…
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
- Burroughs Corp. v. White Lumber Sales, Inc., 372 So. 2d 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)