J.R. BROOKS & SON, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
LORRAINE DONOVAN, AS MOTHER AND GUARDIAN OF THE PERSON OF DANIEL DONOVAN, AN INCAPACITATED PERSON, AND JOSEPH DONOVAN, AS GUARDIAN OF THE PROPERTY OF DANIEL DONOVAN, AN INCAPACITATED PERSON, 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 Florida Third District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari and quashed a trial court order compelling discovery. The court held that the trial judge's blanket order requiring two employees to answer deposition questions about conversations regarding the identity of a shooter during a civil negligence suit violated their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
The trial court's blanket order was overbroad and infringed upon the deponents' Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The court remanded for the trial court to consider whether each question properly falls within the purview of the Fifth Amendment.
[1] The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination applies in civil discovery proceedings when a witness has reasonable grounds to believe that direct answers would…
[2] A blanket order compelling deponents to answer all questions regarding conversations about a particular topic infringes upon the deponents' Fifth Amendment right against…
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“the privilege against self-incrimination may be properly asserted during discovery proceedings if the civil litigant has reasonable grounds to believe that direct answers to deposition or interrogatory questions would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against him”
Establishes the standard for asserting Fifth Amendment privilege in civil discovery
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniel Donovan and Mike Lemus stole fruit from J.R. Brooks & Son, Inc. When employees learned of the theft, several including Murray Bass and Michael …
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 Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, J.R. Brooks & Son, Inc., files this petition for writ of certiorari to review a trial court’s order compelling discovery. We grant the petition, quash the order, and remand.
Daniel Donovan and Mike Lemus stole a large amount of fruit from petitioner. Upon being informed by a neighbor that the crime had just occurred, several of petitioner’s employees, including Murray Bass and Michael Hunt, mounted their pick-up trucks and chased the thieves.
During the course of this high speed chase, Donovan was shot by an unknown person, perhaps one of petitioner’s employees. The thieves were eventually apprehended. Charges for the shooting were not filed because investigators could not determine who shot Donovan.
Donovan’s parents, respondents, sued petitioner alleging negligence on the part of its employees. Respondents sought discovery to determine the identity of the shooter. During depositions, Bass and Hunt invoked the Fifth Amendment and refused to answer questions regarding: (1) the identity of the shooter; or (2) any conversations involving the identity of the shooter. The trial court overruled these objections, holding that the deponents were required to disclose conversations concerning the identity of the shooter. Petitioner asserts that the trial judge’s order infringes upon the deponents’ Fifth Amendment right not to incriminate themselves. Respondents contend that the information sought is exculpatory, not inculpatory, because the questions pertain to whether a third party admitted to the shooting. Thus, respondents argue, that the Fifth Amendment is inapplicable. The Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination applies to all types of proceedings wherein testimony is given and applies alike to a witness as well as a party who is accused. State ex. rel. Mitchell v. Kelly, 71 So. 2d 887 (Fla.1954). Furthermore, this Court has previously stated:
It is settled law that the privilege against self-incrimination may be properly asserted during discovery proceedings if the civil litigant has reasonable grounds to believe that direct answers to deposition or interrogatory questions would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prove a crime against him.
Rainerman v. Eagle National Bank of Miami, 541 So. 2d 740, 741 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
In this case, the trial court’s blanket order compelled deponents Bass and Hunt to answer all questions regarding conversations involving the identity of the shooter. This order is overbroad and infringes upon the deponents’ Fifth Amendment right. U.S. Const, amend. V. Accordingly, we quash the order, and remand so that the trial court may consider whether each question properly falls within the purview of the Fifth Amendment.
Quashed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Magid v. Elliot C. Winter, 654 So. 2d 1037 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…l court order that compels a witness to answer all questions raised, even those which may incriminate the witness, should be considered over-broad and a departure from the essential requirements of law. See, e.g., J.R. Brooks & Son, Inc. v. Donovan, 592 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). In the instant case, during the deposition, Allen was posed with questions which might provide a foundation for a possible criminal prosecution for forgery as well as questions which were completely innocuous. However, instead o…1 / 2
-
Winstel v. Sentry Quick Print, Inc., 655 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…g Kilgore v. Bird). Under this court’s precedents, an order improperly overruling a valid claim of Fifth Amendment privilege is a departure from the essential requirements of law for which cer-tiorari will issue. J.R. Brooks & Son, Inc. v. Donovan, 592 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992) (order compelling deposition answers); Fox v. Kelner, 574 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (order compelling discovery); Albert v. Salce, 439 So. 2d 339 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Town v. Reno, 395 So. 2d 602 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) (order compe…
-
Magbanua v. State (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. Mitchell v. Kelly, 71 So. 2d 887 (Fla. 1954)
- Rainerman v. Eagle Nat'l Bank OF Miami, 541 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)