FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AND SPECIAL AGENT BRUCE NILL, APPELLANTS,
v.
EDUARDO ORTEGA, APPELLEE
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 Florida Department of Law Enforcement appeals a sanctions order imposing attorney's fees and costs after Special Agent Nill made misleading statements at a deposition, falsely claiming FDLE records would demonstrate a link between the plaintiff and a corporation engaged in drug money laundering. The court affirmed the sanctions, holding that the misleading deposition statement necessitated multiple disclosure proceedings and certiorari petitions that would have been unnecessary had truthful testimony been given initially.
The court held there was no abuse of discretion in awarding sanctions. The misleading deposition statement directly caused the plaintiff to pursue two hearings on disclosure and two certiorari proceedings, which would have been unnecessary if truthful testimony had been provided initially.
[1] A party may be awarded attorney's fees and costs when misleading statements made during a deposition necessitate further legal proceedings to ascertain the truth.
[2] A court may order an in camera inspection of documents to determine if they are protected from disclosure under the Public Records Act.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“If a truthful deposition had been given in the first instance, all efforts to secure documents would have been unnecessary.”
Establishes the causal link between the misleading testimony and the unnecessary litigation costs
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring a defamation action against a television station, Special Agent Bruce Nill testified at deposition that FDLE records contained evidence linking…
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 Public Records Act cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
During the pendency of a defamation action against a television station, a deposition was taken of Special Agent Bruce Nill of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE).
At the deposition Nill emphatically stated that records within the FDLE would disclose a link between the plaintiff in the defamation action and a corporation identified before a congressional subcommittee as being guilty of “laundering” drug money in the Caribbean. Plaintiff’s counsel then attempted to secure the information by moving to compel answers on deposition, which disclosure was successfully resisted under the Public Records Act, section 119.07(3)(d), Florida Statutes. Certiorari taken from that order by the plaintiff was denied by this court. Thereafter, the trial court revisited this matter pursuant to the television station’s notice of taking deposition duces tecum and the appellant’s objections thereto which again raised section 119.07(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1983).
The trial court ordered an in camera inspection of the appellant’s records and directed both the plaintiff and the television station to list those matters which they would like the trial court to consider when making its in camera inspection. This request was complied with by both parties. After in camera inspection of the documents the trial court found the documents in question were not protected by Section 119.07(3)(d), Florida Statutes (1983) and ordered their release pursuant to the television station’s subpoena duces tecum. Certiorari from that order, taken by the appellant herein was denied by this court. Thereafter, Special Agent Nill was directed, upon further deposition, to demonstrate the link previously testified to, at which time he acknowledged that no such link was demonstrated from the records within the FDLE. The plaintiff then moved for sanctions, pursuant to Rule 1.380(a)(4), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and under the court’s inherent power, see Continental Casualty Company v. Morgan, 445 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), recovering attorney’s fees and costs. This appeal ensued.
We affirm.
The ultimate release of FDLE’s records enured to the benefit of plaintiff permitting him to ascertain the truth.
But for the misleading statement of Special Agent Nill at the original deposition, the plaintiff would not have been put through two hearings seeking disclosure and two certiorari proceedings in this court. If a truthful deposition had been given in the first instance, all efforts to secure documents would have been unnecessary. Therefore we find no abuse of discretion in the award here under review, Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla.1983); Farish v. Lum’s, Inc., 267 So. 2d 325 (Fla.1972); Shawmut Van Lines, Inc. v. Small, 148 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Goldstein v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, 118 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960), and affirm same.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kirby v. Adkins, 582 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)…08 So. 2d 534 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). The court may have had the inherent authority to award fees if it determined Cushman’s behavior to be contumacious, but the court did not hold her in contempt. See Florida [*1211] Dep’t of Law Enforcement v. Ortega, 508 So. 2d 493 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Miller v. Colonial Baking Co. of Alabama, 402 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Finally, the award was not proper under rule 1.442. Adkins made an offer of judgment which provided that, if it were not accepted in ten days, it shou…
Authorities Cited
- Mercer v. J.D. Raine, Sr., 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)
- Farish v. Lum's, Inc., 267 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1972)
- Shawmut van Lines, Inc. v. Small, 148 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Minerva Goldstein and her husband v. Great Atl. & Pac. TEA Co., 118 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- State v. Riddell, 445 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Morgan, 445 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)