ROBERT OWUSU, JR.,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI,
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 appellate court dismissed a petition for certiorari, finding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate irreparable harm. The case involved a trial court's order precluding a deposition in a public records case.
No, an order denying discovery, such as precluding a deposition, generally does not rise to the level of irreparable harm because it can be remedied on direct appeal. Therefore, certiorari is not appropriate.
[1] Certiorari is an extraordinary writ and not a general license for appellate courts to supervise the day-to-day decision-making of trial courts.
[2] To obtain first-tier certiorari relief, a petitioner must demonstrate both irreparable harm that cannot be corrected on appeal and a departure from the essential requirem…
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 intelligence“Certiorari is not a general license for appellate courts to closely supervise the day-to-day decision making of trial courts.”
Establishes the limited scope of certiorari review.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner sought certiorari review of a trial court's order that prevented him from taking a deposition in a public records case. The appellate c…
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 Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner seeks certiorari review of the trial court’s order precluding him from taking a deposition in a public records case. Because he failed to establish irreparable harm, we need go no further. “Certiorari is not a general license for appellate courts to closely supervise the day-to-day decision making of trial courts.” Stockinger v. Zeilberger, 152 So. 3d 71, 73 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014).
Indeed, “[v]ery few categories of non-final orders qualify for the use of this extraordinary writ.” Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. San Perdido Ass’n, 104 So. 3d 344, 351-52 (Fla. 2012); see also Damsky v. Univ. of Miami, 152 So. 3d 789, 792 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014) (“Under this high standard, few non-final orders qualify for the use of a writ of certiorari.”).
To obtain first-tier certiorari relief, the petitioner must demonstrate “(1) a material injury in the proceedings that cannot be corrected on appeal (sometimes referred to as irreparable harm); and (2) a departure from the essential requirements of the law.” Blamey v. Menadier, 283 So. 3d 938, 940 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (quoting Nader v. Fla. Dep’t of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles, 87 So. 3d 712, 721 (Fla. 2012)).
The existence of “irreparable harm that cannot be remedied on direct appeal is a condition precedent to invoking a district court’s certiorari jurisdiction.” Bd. of Trs. of Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enterprises, LLC, 99 So. 3d 450, 454–55 (Fla. 2012) (citations internal quotation marks omitted); see also Rodriguez v. Miami-Dade County, 117 So. 3d 400, 404 (Fla. 2013) (“Only after
irreparable harm has been established can an appellate court then review whether the petitioner has also shown a departure from the essential requirements of law.”).
“[A]n order that denies discovery normally does not rise to the level of irreparable harm because it can be readily remedied on appeal . . . .” Damsky, 152 So. 3d at 792; see also Clarke v. Coca-Cola Refreshments USA, Inc., 282 So. 3d 897, 898-99 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) (reversing a protective order from a deposition on direct appeal); Lorei v. Smith, 464 So. 2d 1330, 1332-33 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (resolving a pretrial discovery dispute in a public records case on direct appeal). Thus, “orders having the effect of denying discovery are almost invariably not reviewable by certiorari because of the absence of irreparable harm.” Damsky, 152 So. 3d at 792 (quoting Neeley v. CW Roberts Contracting, Inc., 948 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)). Such is the case here.
Petition for certiorari dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nader v. Fla. Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles, 87 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 2012)
- Citizens Prop. Ins. Corp. v. SAN Perdido Ass'n, Inc., 104 So. 3d 344 (Fla. 2012)
- Rodriguez v. Miami-Dade Cnty., 117 So. 3d 400 (Fla. 2013)
- Damsky v. Univ. OF Miami & Alan Livingstone, M.D., 152 So. 3d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)
- Lorei v. Smith, 464 So. 2d 1330 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)
- Neeley v. CW Roberts Contracting, 948 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Blamey v. Menadier (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)