MICHAEL DOKES, PETITIONER,
v.
TIMOTHY KENNEDY, 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.
Petitioner Dokes challenges discovery requests regarding his finances in a punitive damages case, arguing they are burdensome and harassing. The court holds that while broad latitude applies to financial discovery in punitive damages claims, health inquiries are improper, but affirms that the discovery requests otherwise comply with established law.
The court holds that while broad latitude regarding financial discovery in punitive damages cases is permitted, health-related inquiries are not permissible. Except for the health interrogatory, all other discovery requests fall within the parameters established by prior case law and are not unduly burdensome. The court suggests the Civil Procedure Rules Committee develop standard interrogatories specifically tailored to punitive damages cases.
[1] Discovery in punitive damage claims is generally broad, allowing inquiry into a defendant's income, cash flow, expenses, anticipated income, anticipated diminutions of in…
[2] Discovery into a defendant's financial condition in a punitive damage claim does not extend to inquiries about the health of the defendant or their children.
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“Broad latitude regarding discovery in punitive damage claims has been allowed by this court in Donahue v. Hebert”
Establishes the general principle that discovery in punitive damages cases permits wide-ranging financial inquiries
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondent Kennedy propounded interrogatories and requests to produce documents to petitioner Dokes concerning petitioner's finances in connection wit…
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 Financial Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In requesting a writ of certiorari, petitioner claims that the interrogatories and request to produce propounded by respondent regarding petitioner’s finances are burdensome and harassing. They were propounded in connection with a punitive damage claim. Broad latitude regarding discovery in punitive damage claims has been allowed by this court in Donahue v. Hebert, 355 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978), which was cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So. 2d 1169 (Fla.1979). In Donahue, Judge Downey quoted from International Union of Operating Engineers v. Lassitter, 295 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), rev’d on other grounds, 314 So. 2d 761 (Fla.1975), which listed several areas of inquiry which were permissible, including income, cash flow, expenses, anticipated income, anticipated diminutions of income, anticipated casualties as affecting the assessment of punitive damages. To that list, Judge Downey also added inquiries about bank accounts, depositories, present and recent ownership of property and its value and any interests in various business arrangements. Id. at 1266.
However broad that latitude is with regard to discovery of financial matters involving the defendant, it does not in any event include an inquiry into the condition of the health of defendant and his children, if any. (Interrogatory 6(b)) Other than that interrogatory, we find all of the other requests within the parameters of Donahue. With respect to Interrogatory 6(b) we conclude that this interrogatoiy is not required to be answered as the trial court granted the motion to compel only “for discovery that shows financial information (net worth and assets)”.
Nevertheless, although there is no departure from the essential requirements of law in the propounding of these interrogatories and request to produce, the interrogatories propounded are modelled after the 1985 version of interrogatories propounded in dissolution of marriage eases. These interrogatories were not intended specifically for use in punitive damage claims. We would suggest that the Civil Procedure Rules Committee could write a similar standard set of initial interrogatories in punitive damage eases. A standard set would have the salutary purpose of both reducing the burdensomeness, time and expense of such discovery and preventing the discovery of a defendant’s financial condition from overtaking the determination of liability and other issues in a case.
The petition for writ of certiorari is denied.
GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and PARIENTE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tennant v. Charlton, 377 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 1979)
- Int'l Union OF Operating Eng'rs v. Lassitter, 295 So. 2d 634 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Lassitter v. Walton, 314 So. 2d 761 (Fla. 1975)
- Richard v. Donahue, 355 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)