COMPTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A., PETITIONER,
v.
PORLICK, POLIQUIN, SAMARA, INC., AND ROBERT A. PORLICK, P.E., INDIVIDUALLY, AND ROBERT J. COMPTON, 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.
Compton & Associates sought a writ of certiorari challenging a trial court order compelling production of all corporate documents and tax returns in a simple breach of contract action. The Florida appellate court granted the petition, holding that such wholesale discovery was not justified because the documents were not relevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence.
The trial court departed from the essential requirements of law by compelling production of all corporate documents and tax returns. Such documents are not relevant to a simple breach of contract action and are not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.280(b)(1).
[1] A trial court departs from the essential requirements of law by compelling the production of all corporate documents and tax returns when the corporation admits to enteri…
[2] Discovery requests for corporate documents must be relevant or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
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“We conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in compelling production of all of the corporate documents and corporate tax returns under the circumstances of this case.”
Establishes the court's ultimate holding that the discovery order was improper.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePorlick, Poliquin, Samara, Inc. and Robert A. Porlick, P.E. sued Compton & Associates, P.A. and Robert J. Compton for nonpayment of consulting enginee…
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 Reasonably Calculated To Lead To Admissible Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Compton & Associates, P.A. petitions for a writ of certiorari. We grant the petition.
Plaintiffs Porlick, Poliquin, Samara, Inc. and Robert A. Porlick, P.E. sued defendants Compton & Associates, P.A. and Robert J. Compton, alleging nonpayment of sums due for consulting engineering services provided by Porlick. The corporate entity, Compton & Associates, P.A., concedes that it entered into the contract. Robert J. Compton concedes that he signed the contract in his corporate capacity, but disputes that he signed in a personal capacity.
Plaintiffs propounded discovery to defendants. Included in the request for production of documents was a demand that the corporate defendant produce “All corporate/]? .A. documents including minutes, annual reports, Financial Statements, Tax Return, Certificate of good standing since January 1, 1990.” The corporate defendant objected that this demand requested documents which were irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The trial court ordered the documents produced and this petition for writ of certiorari follows.
We conclude that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in compelling production of all of the corporate documents and corporate tax returns under the circumstances of this case. Here it is admitted that the corporation executed the contract. The lawsuit is a simple action for breach of contract. There is no claim, or basis for a claim, for punitive damages. We do not see how the requested documents are relevant to the pending lawsuit, nor do we see a basis on which they are “reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.280(b)(1); see Higgs v. Kampgrounds of America, 526 So. 2d 980, 981 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); Malt v. Simmons, 405 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Van Devere v. Holmes, 156 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Further, we conclude that the petition for certiorari in this case satisfies the standard announced in Allstate Insurance Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla.1995).
It is, of course, permissible for plaintiffs to fashion a discovery request which asks for all of the corporate defendant’s documents which refer or relate to the contract at issue. Indeed, other items in the plaintiffs’ request for production of documents do just that. The demand for wholesale turnover of the corporate books, records, and tax returns for a five year period cannot, howev er, be justified under the circumstances of this case.
Certiorari granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995)
- Malt v. Simmons, 405 So. 2d 1018 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Ervin A. Higgs v. Kampgrounds OF Am., 526 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- VAN Devere v. Jeanette v. Holmes, 156 So. 2d 899 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)