CARIDAD MEDERO, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF PAULINO MEDERO, DECEDENT, PETITIONER,
v.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, 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.
Caridad Medero sought certiorari review of a trial court order denying her motion to compel the deposition of Robert Marshall, an FPL executive, in a wrongful death action involving an alleged electrocution. The appellate court granted the petition, finding the trial court failed to articulate good cause for denying discovery of a material witness.
The trial court's order denying the motion to compel was improper because the court made no finding of good cause and failed to rebut the suggestion from FPL's own CEO that Marshall was a material witness. The order departed from essential requirements of law and was therefore subject to certiorari review.
[1] Certiorari review of an order denying discovery is appropriate when the injury caused by the order is irreparable, such as the denial of the right to take the testimony o…
[2] A trial court may deny discovery upon a showing of good cause, such as abusive or cumulative depositions of corporate executives.
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 trial court made no finding, and there is nothing in the record before us, to rebut the suggestion by FPL's own C.E.O. that Mr. Marshall is a material witness; and there was no finding of good cause to preclude this particular deposition.”
Establishes the standard that the trial court must articulate good cause to deny discovery of a material witness
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMedero's husband was allegedly electrocuted by an FPL power line. In early 1994, Medero sought to depose three FPL executives. The trial court initial…
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 Florida Rule Of Civil Procedure 1.280 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner, Caridad Medero, plaintiff below, seeks a writ of certiorari from this court to review the trial court’s order denying plaintiffs motion to compel the deposition of Robert Marshall, an executive of defendant Florida Power & Light Company. For the following reasons, we grant the petition and quash the order of the trial court.
In early 1994, the plaintiff wife of the decedent who was allegedly electrocuted by an FPL power line, sought to depose three FPL executives. At the hearing on FPL’s motion for protective order, the trial court ruled as follows:
THE COURT: I’m going to allow one officer to see just what the results of that deposition will be.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Can I come back to you, Judge, after that?
THE COURT: You’ll have to.
The court entered a written order the following day granting the motion for protective order with respect to Robert Marshall and a second FPL executive, and denying the motion with respect to the chief executive officer of FPL. The C.E.O.’s deposition was finally completed approximately one year later. In his deposition, the C.E.O. generally denied knowledge of the allegations of the complaint, but at numerous points identified Mr. Marshall, head of FPL’s Distribution Department which oversees the placement of power lines, as potentially having knowledge regarding allegations of FPL’s negligence in safety, design, construction, operations and compliance with the National Electric Safety Code. The plaintiff then moved to compel the deposition of Mr. Marshall; and the trial judge, a successor to the judge who entered the 1994 partial protective order, denied the motion to compel.
While an order denying discovery is not ordinarily reviewable by certiorari, certiorari review of orders denying discovery has been granted where it was found that the injury caused by the order was irreparable. Ruiz v. Steiner, 599 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). In circumstances involving the denial of the right to take testimony of an alleged material witness, it has been recognized that such a denial cannot be remedied on appeal since “there would be no practical way to determine after judgment what the testimony would be or how it would affect the result.” Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hill, 388 So. 2d 648, 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). The order under review departs from the essential requirements of law because the trial court made no finding, and there is nothing in the record before us, to rebut the suggestion by FPL’s own C.E.O. that Mr. Marshall is a material witness; and there was no finding of good cause to preclude this particular deposition. The trial court has the right to deny discovery upon a showing of good cause, e.g. abusive, cumulative depositions of corporate executives, under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280. However, the trial judge’s cursory review of the issue and ruling that “I think we have had enough discovery in this [case],” after his predecessor’s virtual invitation to plaintiff to return to the court following the deposition of the C.E.O., evinces no consideration of good cause. See Travelers, 388 So. 2d at 650.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted; the order denying plaintiffs motion to compel the deposition of Robert Marshall is quashed; and the cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (23 total)
-
Sardinas v. Claridania Lagares, 805 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…of an alleged material witness, ... such a denial cannot be remedied on appeal since ‘there would be no practical way to determine after judgment what the testimony would be or how it would affect the result.’ ” Medero v. Florida Power & Light Co., 658 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (quoting Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hill, 388 So. 2d 648, 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)) (emphasis added); see also Life-mark Hospitals of Florida, Inc. v. Hernandez, 748 So. 2d 378, 379 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (granting certiorari and quash…
-
Dusan Sabol, M.D. v. Bennett, 672 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…ged material witness inflicts the type of harm that cannot be corrected on appeal since “there would be no practical way to determine after judgment what the testimony would be or how it would affect the result.” Medero v. Florida Power & Light Co., 658 So. 2d 566, 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (quoting Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hill, 388 So. 2d 648, 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)); see also Criswell v. Best Western Int'l, Inc., 636 So. 2d 562, 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Ruiz v. Steiner, 599 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992). Pe…
-
Off. of the Attorney Gen. v. Millennium Commc'ns & Fulfillment, Inc., 800 So. 2d 255 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)…because “there would be no practical way to determine after judgment what the testimony would be or how it would affect the result.” Travelers Indem. Co. v. Hill, 388 So. 2d 648, 650 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980); see also Medero v. Florida Power & Light Co., 658 So. 2d 566, 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). Additionally, the order under review departs from the essential requirements of law because the trial court made no finding and the grounds alleged in the motion for protective order cannot form the basis for denying petitio…
Previewing 3 of 23 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ruiz v. Leonard Steiner, M.D., 599 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- 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)