STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
PATRICIA GRAY AND ROBERT GRAY HER HUSBAND, 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.
State Farm sought certiorari review of a trial court order requiring production of data on referrals to a specific medical examiner. The appellate court granted certiorari, holding that the discovery request was unduly burdensome and oppressive because State Farm maintained no central records file from which the information could be readily extracted.
The court held that the discovery request was unduly burdensome and oppressive because State Farm did not maintain a central records file from which the requested information could be readily extracted, and respondents failed to sufficiently contradict State Farm's affidavit regarding the burden of compliance. The court also noted that even if the request were not inherently burdensome, requiring compliance within four days would be unreasonable.
[1] Certiorari review is appropriate when a trial court's order constitutes an abuse of discretion and a departure from the essential requirements of law.
[2] A discovery request is unduly burdensome and oppressive when compliance requires significant expenditure of time and money and the requested information cannot be readily…
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“Certiorari review will lie where, as here, the trial court's order constitutes an abuse of discretion and a departure from the essential requirements of law.”
Establishes the standard for appellate review of discovery orders via certiorari.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceState Farm's Coral Reef office received a discovery request for the number of its referrals to independent medical examiner Dr. Richard Glatzer during…
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 Undue Burden cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s April 13, 1989, order requiring petitioner to produce by April 14, 1989, the number of petitioner’s referrals to independent medical examiner Dr. Richard Glatzer. The challenged order is the product of a hearing on April 10, 1989, and relates to claims processed by petitioner’s Coral Reef office during the twelve (12) month period beginning May 1, 1987 and ending May 1, 1988. Petitioner had moved for a protective order, with a supporting affidavit, on the grounds that the request was so unduly burdensome as to be oppressive, that petitioner maintained no central file from which the requested information could be readily retrieved, and that, therefore, petitioner could not comply without expending great amounts of both time and money.
We agree with petitioner, grant certiorari, and quash the order of the trial court.
Certiorari review will lie where, as here, the trial court’s order constitutes an abuse of discretion and a departure from the essential requirements of law. American Health Plan, Inc. v. Kostner, 367 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Argonaut Insurance Company v. Peralta, 358 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978).
Respondents have not sufficiently contradicted petitioner’s affidavit which states that petitioner does not maintain a central records file from which the requested information can be readily extracted. We therefore find the requested production to be so unduly burdensome as to be oppressive. See North Miami General Hospital v. Royal Palm Beach Colony, Inc., 397 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (request which required manual retrieval and review of more than 37,000 admission files found burdensome); Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Salido, 354 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978) (request for insurer’s paid bills found unduly burdensome where insurer maintained no central records file and compliance would require examination and review of thousands of claim files).
Additionally, while our primary concern is the substantive aspect of the challenged order, we note as a secondary matter that, were the requested production not inherently burdensome, requiring compliance within four days from the date of the hearing would be.
Accordingly, the order of April 13, 1989, is hereby quashed.
CERTIORARI GRANTED AND CAUSE REMANDED IN ACCORDANCE HEREWITH.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Syken v. Elkins, 644 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…e of two earlier orders, one by Judge Klein, in Cabin v. State Farm, et at., one by Judge Goldman, in Niurys Antomarchy v. Trend South, Inc., and two previous cases in which Dr. Glatzer has been the subject, State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gray, 546 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) and Dollar General, Inc. v. Deangelis, 590 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). The trial judge then announced that she found it “inconceivable that Dr. Glatzer has no idea of the approximate amount of money he makes performing IME's, o…1 / 2
-
Dollar Gen., Inc. v. Deangelis, 590 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)…hings, the trial court required the production of voluminous records in just four days from the entry of the order appealed from and required Dr. Glatzer to bear the expense of producing the requested records. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gray, 546 So. 2d 36 (Fla.3d DCA 1989). Upon remand, the plaintiffs may depose Dr. Glatzer [or others] to inquire whether his office or some other party has the records requested — particularly the 1099 forms — in another form which would not be unduly burdensome for D…
-
Melvin Young, M.D. v. Santos, 611 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…affidavit showing that to comply with the request would be so unduly burdensome as to be oppressive, certio-rari relief should be granted. Dollar General, Inc. v. Deangelis, 590 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Gray, 546 So. 2d 36 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). In the instant case petitioner filed an uncontradicted affidavit that it would cost nearly $10,000 to produce the payment records requested by respondent. While the trial court ordered the payment of $400 towards such expenses,…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Peralta, 358 So. 2d 232 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- State v. Pezzella, 397 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Salido, 354 So. 2d 963 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Am. Health Plan, Inc. v. Tully Kostner, 367 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)