SCRIPTO TOKAI CORPORATION, PETITIONER,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CAYO, A MINOR, BY AND THROUGH HIS PARENTS AND NATURAL GUARDIANS, ERNESTO CAYO AND AYMEE CAYO, AND ERNESTO CAYO AND AYMEE CAYO, INDIVIDUALLY, 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 non-resident former corporate officer, who is not involved in the corporation's day-to-day activities, cannot be compelled to attend a deposition in the United States at the corporation's expense via a protective order denial.
Respondents filed a personal injury claim against petitioner Scripto Tokai Corporation. Scripto sought a protective order to prevent the video deposit…
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 Subpoena Power cases and more on FLexlaw
BARKDULL, Judge.
The petitioner, Scripto Tokai Corporation, files this writ of Certiorari to review an order denying petitioner’s motion for protective order. Respondents filed a personal injury claim against petitioner. Respondents served notice of taking a video tape deposition of To-mio Nitta, a former corporate officer of Scripto. Scripto filed for protective order stating that Nitta was not a U.S. resident and was not involved in the day-to-day activities of the corporation. The motion for protective order was denied and Scripto was required to produce the former director in California for deposition.
Since Nitta ceased to be a director before his deposition was to be taken, he can only be deposed upon being served with a subpoena. The trial court erred in denying Seripto’s motion for a protective order as Scripto is unable to cause Mr. Nitta to travel from Japan to the United States for the taking of a non-party deposition. Mitchell v. American Tobacco Company, 33 F.R.D. 262 (M.D.Pa.1963); Sykes International, Ltd. v. Pilch’s Poultry Breeding, 55 F.R.D. 138 (D.Conn.1972).
The respondents may depose Nitta, but Scripto cannot be compelled to produce him. The respondents may pursue him in his individual capacity however. See Cameo-Parkway Records, Inc. v. Premier Albums, Inc., 43 F.R.D. 400 (S.D.N.Y.1967).
Therefore, we find that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in denying the protective order and we hereby quash same.
Order under review quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Packaging Corp. OF Am. v. DeRYCKE, 49 So. 3d 286 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)…1). PCA could not compel Mr. Sum-walt to testify at trial. It had “no method to compel an out-of-state witness to testify in a civil proceeding.” See Washington v. State, 973 So. 2d 611, 613 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); see also Scripto Tokai Corp. v. Cayo, 623 So. 2d 828, 828-29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (holding trial court departed from essential requirements of law by ordering Scripto to produce nonresident former corporate officer for videotape deposition because it was legally unable to procure his attendance). Mr. Su…