INDUSTRIAL TRACTOR COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
JOHN BARTLETT, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A BARTLETT EXCAVATING, 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.
Florida appellate court denied certiorari review of a trial court's protective order limiting discovery of respondent's financial records in a replevin action with punitive damages claim, holding that certiorari is unavailable to review orders denying discovery because such errors are correctable on plenary appeal.
Common law certiorari is not available to review orders denying discovery because errors in such orders can be corrected on plenary appeal.
[1] Common law certiorari is available to review orders granting discovery of non-discoverable items due to irreparable harm, but not to review orders denying discovery, whic…
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 intelligenceIndustrial Tractor Company brought a replevin action against Bartlett and sought discovery of Bartlett's financial documentation to support a punitive…
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 Plenary Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
COWART, Judge.
Petitioner brought an action in replevin against respondent and included a claim for punitive damages in its amended complaint. Subsequently petitioner sought discovery of documentation of respondent’s finances in connection with its claim for punitive damages. By motion for protective order, however, respondent requested the trial court to limit discovery of his finances and the trial court granted his motion. Petitioner now seeks review of this order by writ of common law certiorari.
We note that common law certiorari is available to review orders which grant discovery because of the irreparable harm involved when an order impermissibly grants discovery of a non-discoverable item. See, e.g., East Colonial Refuse Service, Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Travelers Insurance Company v. Habelow, 405 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). However, it is generally held that certiorari may not be utilized to review orders which deny discovery because such orders, if in error, can be rectified upon plenary appeal. See, e.g., Esman v. Board of Regents, 425 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Professional Medical Specialties, Inc. v. Renfroe, 362 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Accordingly, the petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
DENIED.
COBB, C.J., and FRANK D. UP-CHURCH, Jr., J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Carroll Contracting, Inc. v. The Honorable William F. Edwards, 528 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…tional Beverage Suppliers, Inc. v. Esquire Products of Florida, Inc., 493 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Hydrocarbon Trading and Transport Co. v. Rameo International, Inc., 488 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); Industrial Tractor Company v. Bartlett, 454 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). As stated in Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987), common-law certiorari is an extraordinary remedy which should not be used to circumvent the interlocutory appeal rule which authorizes appeal from only a…
-
Marshall v. Anderson, 459 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…aintiff even to determine the basic elements of his cause of action — that is, who said what to whom about him. For that reason, unlike the ordinary situation in which discovery is denied rather than required, see Industrial Tractor Co. v. Bartlett, 454 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), but as in Young, Stern & Tannenbaum, P.A. v. Smith, 416 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), which also concerned a claim of testimonial privilege, the order below satisfies the first prong of the test for the availability of review by…
-
Anderson v. Vander Meiden, 56 So. 3d 830 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…st cases the harm can be corrected on appeal.” Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Mem’l Hosp. Found., Inc., 8 So. 3d 1232, 1234 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); see also Am. S. Co. v. Tinter, Inc., 565 So. 2d 891, 892-93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Indus. Tractor Co. v. Bartlett, 454 So. 2d 1067, 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). However, when the requested discovery is relevant or is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and the order denying that discovery effectively eviscerates a party’s claim, defense, or count…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Spike von Zamft v. Heller, 425 So. 2d 156 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- E. Colonial Refuse Serv., Inc. v. Velocci, 416 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Prof'l Med. Specialties, Inc. v. Renfroe, 362 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Travelers Ins. Co. v. Habelow, 405 So. 2d 1361 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)