ARNOLD D. PALMER, ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
WDI SYSTEMS, INC., 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.
Petitioners Palmer et al. sought a writ of certiorari to overturn a trial court's denial of discovery regarding respondent WDI Systems' financial ability to close a $3 million stock purchase agreement for the Bay Hill Club and Lodge. The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that certiorari is generally unavailable to challenge discovery denials and found this case did not qualify as a rare exception warranting such review.
Certiorari is not an appropriate remedy to review a trial court's denial of discovery in this case. Certiorari is generally unavailable to challenge discovery denials except in extremely rare circumstances, which are not present here. Petitioners have an adequate remedy through plenary appeal if the denied discovery is deemed permissible.
[1] Certiorari is generally not available to review a trial court's denial of discovery, and such denials will only be reviewed on plenary appeal unless the case falls within…
[2] A party seeking discovery must demonstrate that the denied discovery constitutes a material departure from the essential requirements of law that will be irremediable on…
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“Certiorari is normally not available to review a denial of discovery by the trial court, and this case does not qualify as one of the extremely rare exceptions to this rule identified by this court in the past.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that discovery denials are generally not subject to 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 intelligenceRespondent WDI Systems commenced an action to recover a $3 million deposit made pursuant to a stock purchase agreement for TBHC, Inc., which owns the …
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 Assignee Liability cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Judge.
Petitioners seek a writ of certiorari to quash an order of the trial court denying petitioners production of documents. The suit below is an action commenced by respondent to recover a $3 million deposit made pursuant to the parties’ agreement for sale and purchase of the stock of TBHC, Inc., which owns the resort' property in Orange County known as the Bay Hill Club and Lodge. The documents requested from respondent concern an issue raised in petitioners’ answer and counterclaim that respondent never had the financial ability to close the purchase, and, therefore, respondent’s attempts to rely on various breaches by petitioners to terminate the agreement were a legally ineffective subterfuge. Petitioners rely principally on warranty provisions of the agreement that the buyer:
has assets sufficient to allow it to consummate the transactions contemplated by this agreement, or it has preliminary financing commitments which would enable it to consummate the transactions contemplated by this agreement....
Petitioners contend the respondent, as assignee, did assume this warranty obligation and further contend section 4.3 of the contract makes the respondent’s financial ability a condition of the obligation of the petitioners to close:
The closing and the obligation of the Selling Shareholders to close the transaction are conditioned on the following: that representations and warranties of the Buyer shall be true as of the closing with the same force and effect as though made as of such date....
The trial court’s stated reason for denying the requested discovery was that the respondent was an assignee of a purchase agreement originally entered into between petitioners and a third party and as such did not assume the contractual warranty obligation of the respondent’s assignor. Respondent’s additional argument is that, due to the petitioners’ failure to meet the requirements of section 1.4 of the contract as amended, concerning cure of undisclosed defects uncovered during the due diligence inspection, or other breaches of the contract and contract warranties by petitioners, the respondent’s financial ability to close the sale and purchase became irrelevant.
Petitioners urge that the trial court’s failure to allow this discovery constitutes a material departure from the essential requirements of the law which will be irremediable on appeal because they will be unable to show what the denied discovery would have yielded. We disagree and find that certiorari is not appropriate in this case. Certiorari is normally not available to review a denial of discovery by the trial court, and this case does not qualify as one of the extremely rare exceptions to this rule identified by this court in the past. Compare Industrial Tractor Co. v. Bartlett, 454 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), with Travelers Indem. v. Hill, 388 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). As a practical matter, a trial court weighs a variety of factors in deciding whether to refuse discovery to a party. As in this case, the nature of the information sought, the expense and the probable relevancy are measured against the risk of a new trial if the case is tried without the items sought in discovery. If, on plenary appeal, the denied discovery is deemed to be within the scope of permissible discovery, the petitioners will have an adequate remedy. See Epstein v. Epstein, 519 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA), review dismissed, 536 So. 2d 244 (Fla.1988); Saunders v. Florida Keys Electric Co-op Ass’n, Inc., 471 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 482 So. 2d 348 (Fla.1986).
WRIT DENIED.
GOSHORN, C.J., and COWART, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Beekie v. Montgomery Scott Morgan, 751 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…998). Ordinarily, trial court orders refusing to compel discovery are not reviewed by certiorari because it is believed any harm caused by the denial can be adequately remedied on appeal from the final order. See, e.g., Palmer v. WDI Systems, Inc., 588 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). We think this case is one of the rare denial-of-diseovery cases in which certiora-ri review is warranted. See Helmick v. McKinnon, 657 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Ruiz v. Steiner, 599 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). The fail…
-
Duran v. MFM Grp., Inc., 841 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)…certiorari review from the adverse order. As a general rule, certiorari will not be granted to review an order denying discovery since any error in denying the requested discovery can be remedied on plenary appeal. See Palmer v. WDI Systems, Inc., 588 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Exceptions are made only in those cases involving a material witness who possesses information “going to some fact affecting the merits of the cause and about which no other witness might testify.” Wingate v. Mach, 117 Fla. 104,…
-
Am. Prime Title Servs., LLC v. ZHI Wang, 317 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Indus. Tractor Co. v. Bartlett, 454 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984)
- Brevard Cnty. & the Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs of the Cnty. of Brevard v. Kimball, 388 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Travelers Indem. Co. v. Hill, 388 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Saunders v. Fla. Keys Elec. Co-Op Ass'n, Inc., 471 So. 2d 88 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Epstein v. Epstein, 519 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)