BARON, MELNICK & POWELL, P.A., APPELLANTS,
v.
BARRY W. COSTA AND RACHEL COSTA, HIS WIFE, AND CLARENCE C. COSTA AND KATHERINE COSTA, HIS WIFE, STARVIN MARVIN'S COUNTRY COOKIN', INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
A law firm appealed an order compelling production of business documents to defendants, arguing the documents were not sought for proper discovery purposes but rather to enable defendants to prepare their own tax returns. The appellate court agreed, finding the documents were not relevant to the pending action and quashed the discovery order.
The appellate court held that the discovery order was improper because the documents were not relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. The documents were sought only to enable defendants to prepare tax returns, not to advance either party's claim or defense in the billing dispute.
[1] Orders improperly compelling discovery are reviewable by writ of certiorari.
[2] Discovery requests must seek documents relevant to the subject matter of the pending action or relating to a party's claim or defense.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“The correct method for review of orders improperly compelling discovery is by writ of certiorari.”
Establishes the proper procedure for challenging discovery orders in the appellate court.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBaron, Melnick & Powell, P.A. filed a complaint against Barry and Rachel Costa and Clarence and Katherine Costa seeking payment of $8,390.12 for profe…
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 Statutory Lien cases and more on FLexlaw
SHIVERS, Judge.
Appellants, plaintiffs in the trial court, seek an interlocutory appeal of an order of the trial court directing them to produce certain documents to the appel-lees/defendants. The correct method for review of orders improperly compelling discovery is by writ of certiorari. Gadsden County Times, Inc. v. Horne, 426 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). Therefore, we elect to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. The petition is granted and the order is quashed.
The appellants/plaintiffs in this matter filed a complaint against appellees/defend-ants, seeking payment of a bill in the amount of $8,390.12 for professional accounting services rendered by the plaintiffs. On May 30, 1985, the defendants filed a motion for an order directing plaintiffs to produce documents, seeking the return of certain business records which they had delivered to plaintiffs to use in the preparation of their 1983 business and personal tax returns. The motion stated that the plaintiffs had failed to prepare the tax returns and that defendants needed the documents so that they could prepare the returns themselves. No other reasons for needing the documents were alleged.
After a hearing on the motion, the court entered an order directing plaintiffs to produce the documents. Appellants now ar gue (1) that the court erred in ordering them to produce the documents when they were not sought for proper discovery purposes, and (2) that appellants held both common-law and statutory liens on the documents such that the court should have required the posting of a bond.
We agree with appellants’ first argument. Under Rule 1.350(a), Fla.R.Civ.P., a party may request another party to produce documents that constitute or contain matters within the scope of Rule 1.280(b). Rule 1.280(b)(1) defines the scope of discovery as “any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, whether it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery or the claim or defense of the other party....”
The appellees neither alleged nor showed that the documents sought from appellants were relevant to the subject matter of the pending action or that they related to either party’s claim or defense. To the contrary, their motion stated only that the documents were needed so that appellees could prepare and file their 1983 tax returns.
Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the order of the trial court. We find it unnecessary to address the appellants’ second issue.
WENTWORTH and WIGGINGTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Transmark v. State, 631 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…rport Auth, 593 So. 2d 1219, 1221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). Orders granting a party’s motion to compel discovery may also be reviewed by certiorari. Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987); Baron, Melnick & Powell, P.A. v. Costa, 478 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985). In seeking certiorari review of a pretrial, nonappealable order, the party seeking review must demonstrate not only that the trial judge “departed from the essential requirements of law” but also that the harm resulting from the…
-
Suburban Propane v. The Est. OF Ralph Pitcher, 564 So. 2d 1118 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…not be litigated in such proceeding, the discovery of matters which were pertinent to any such subsequent action were not relevant to the subject matter of the pending action, the estate proceeding. See also Baron, Melnick & Powell, P.A., v. Costa, 478 So. 2d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Manatee County v. Estech Gen. Chems. Corp., 402 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Weyant v. Rawlings, 389 So. 2d 710 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). In my judgment these cases are distin-guishablé from the instant case in that the matters into…
-
Cabanas v. Ford, 727 So. 2d 1100 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…urisdiction to entertain this petition. See Frank Medina Trading Co. v. Blanco, 553 So. 2d 285, 286 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. U.S.C.P. Co., 515 So. 2d 998, 1000 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987); Baron, Melnick & Powell, P.A. v. Costa, 478 So. 2d 492, 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985); Gadsden County Times, Inc. v. Horne, 426 So. 2d 1234, 1236 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Affiliated of Florida, Inc. v. U-Need Sundries, Inc., 397 So. 2d 764, 764 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). . Specifically, the deposition questions ordered…
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
- Gadsden Cnty. Times, Inc. v. Mallory E. Horne, 426 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)