LES VIOLINS, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
BEATRIZ ALZAMORA AND JUAN ALZAMORA, RESPONDENTS
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 a protective order delaying a deposition until three days before trial was an abuse of discretion when the deponent is a claimant and material witness, and the opposing party failed to respond to the petition for certiorari.
[1] A trial court has broad discretion in discovery matters, but orders restricting discovery must be evaluated in the specific circumstances of the case.
[2] An order restricting a plaintiff's deposition to a short period before trial may be quashed if it prejudices the defendant's ability to prepare for trial.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner sought to depose respondent, a claimant and material witness in a slip-and-fall case, but the trial court issued a protective order delayin…
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 Matters cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Les Violins, defendant below, petitions for a writ of certiorari to review a protective order providing that the deposition of respondent Juan Alzamora, plaintiff below, not be taken until three days before trial. No response to the petition was submitted by respondents.
The suit below is a slip-and-fall case brought by respondent Beatriz Alzamora. Her husband Juan Alzamora has joined as plaintiff seeking damages for loss of consortium. He was also a witness of his wife’s fall on petitioner’s premises. Petitioners are both residents of Venezuela.
The trial court has great discretion with respect to discovery matters. Trial court orders have been sustained which require appearance of a plaintiff for his or her own deposition a relatively short time before trial. Compare Godshall v. Hessen, 227 So. 2d 506, 508 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) (citing City of Miami Beach v. Wolfe, 83 So. 2d 774 (Fla.1955)) (nonresident plaintiff must appear for deposition within the jurisdiction “usually a short time before trial”) (dictum), cert. denied, 237 So. 2d 530 (Fla.1970) with Rose v. Brouwer, 253 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971) (order restricting taking of plaintiff’s deposition to 72-hour period pri-or to trial “presumptively limited the defendant’s ability to prepare for the trial”). The justification for such an order is inherently fact-specific, and must be evaluated in the circumstances of the individual case.
In the instant case, respondent has failed to respond to petitioner’s contention that it will be prejudiced by the failure of respondent to appear for deposition until the eve of trial, given that respondent is both a claimant and material witness. The deposition, according to petitioner, would come too late to be useful in preparation for trial.
We treat respondents’ failure to respond as a concession of the correctness of petitioner’s argument as applied to the facts of this case. We therefore grant the petition and quash the order under review insofar as it prevents petitioner from taking the deposition of Juan Alzamora in Dade County, Florida, on reasonable notice at any time.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tsutras v. Duhe, 685 So. 2d 979 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…t submit to a deposition here, even this requirement is not without limits. For example, It is a standard requirement that a deposition of a nonresi [*981] dent plaintiff be set “usually a short time before trial.” See Les Violins, Inc. v. Alzamora, 541 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). See also, City of Miami Beach v. Wolfe, 83 So. 2d 774, 775 (Fla.1955), which upheld an order that required that “the deposition of the plaintiff be taken in the locality of her residence in New York, or that she be examined in Da…
Authorities Cited
- City OF Miami Beach v. Wolfe, 83 So. 2d 774 (Fla. 1955)
- Godshall v. Hessen, 227 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Cook v. City of Gainesville, 237 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1970)
- Hamilton Elec. Co. v. Polk Cnty. Abstract Co., 237 So. 2d 530 (Fla. 1970)
- Rose v. Brouwer, 253 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 1st DCA 1971)