EDWARD J. DEBARTOLO CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
REGINA BROWN PETRIN, 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.
DeBartolo Corporation sought review of a discovery order requiring production of extensive criminal activity records from its shopping malls nationwide. The court found the discovery request overly broad and lacking sufficient nexus to the underlying tort claim, and quashed the order for reconsideration.
The discovery order is too broad and must be quashed. The respondent failed to demonstrate a sufficient need for all requested records, and there must be a reasonable connection between criminal activities at a particular mall and the specific tort complained of in the case.
[1] Discovery requests must be narrowly tailored and relevant to the claims asserted.
[2] A discovery order is overly broad when it seeks records from entities or locations not directly related to the litigation.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“it is too broad and respondent has not shown a need for all requested records”
The court's primary holding that the discovery order exceeds proper scope
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThis case involves a discovery dispute in what appears to be a tort action related to an alleged attack in a restroom at Paddock Mall Shopping Center.…
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 Discovery Disputes cases and more on FLexlaw
DAUKSCH, Judge.
This matter is before this court to review a discovery order requiring petitioner to produce:
1. Any and all records in reference to incidences of criminal activity or suspected criminal activity on the premises of the Paddock Mall Shopping Center, including but not limited to, the covered shopping area and the parking area from the date of the completion of construction of the Paddock Mall to date.
2. Any and all records in reference to incidences of criminal activity in Marion County, Florida from the date of the completion of construction to date.
3. Any and all records maintained at your office or reasonably accessible to you with reference to criminal activities on the premises of other shopping malls or other shopping facilities owned, operated, constructed, or for which security is provided by the Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation, including criminal activities in the communities where such shopping facilities are located which have been prepared from 1980 to date. Please include any monthly summaries of such criminal activities.
4. The names and addresses of all chiefs of security for the mall facilities owned,, operated, constructed, or for which security is provided by the Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation in the State of Florida for the past five years.
5. Any and all information maintained by or in the custody or control of the Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation in reference to the preparation of security manuals and/or security procedures for shopping malls owned, operated, or for which security is provided by the Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation. Please include any security manuals and any security training manuals which are in the care, custody and control of the witness and readily accessible to the witness from 1980 to date.
6. Any and all written information, including hand written notes, which contain references to security procedures regarding protection of patrons and/or employees utilizing public restrooms located in shopping facilities owned, operated, constructed, or for which security is maintained by the Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation from 1980 to date. Please include any such documents which are under the care, custody and control or utilized by this witness in his capacity as agent/employee of the Edward J. DeBar-tolo Corporation.
Without going into every detail of the matters the court would have petitioner produce, we must say it is too broad and respondent has not shown a need for all requested records. For example, it is very possible petitioner has built many shopping centers which it does not now own, and this order would require petitioner to somehow find and produce records regarding those malls. Also, there must be some reasonable connection between the criminal activities in a particular mall and the tort complained of here. For example if an employee embezzled money from petitioner in a mall in South Dakota would that have any relevance to the alleged attack in a restroom complained of here? Considering the point made, we shall say no further but to quash the order and remand the matter for more thorough consideration and limitation.
ORDER QUASHED.
UPCHURCH, C.J., and SHARP, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mazda Motor Corp. v. Quinn, 524 So. 2d 1021 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…so relies on the following, among others: Carribean Security System, Inc. v. Security Control System, Inc., 486 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Hoagland, 499 So. 2d 940 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Petrin, 497 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Bucyrus-Erie Co. v. Hessey, 421 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); National Convenience Stores, Inc. v. Embrey, 375 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). After considerable study of the voluminous pleadings, interrogatories, and cited au…