RAMONA LEE CALFIN, PETITIONER,
v.
RONALD VINCENT MCINNIS, 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 sought certiorari review of an order denying her motion to compel production of accident scene photographs on work product privilege grounds in a personal injury suit where liability was admitted and only damages remained at issue. The court dismissed the petition, holding that plenary appeal on a final judgment provides an adequate remedy for challenging discovery orders, making certiorari inappropriate.
An order denying a motion to compel discovery is not appropriate for certiorari review because plenary appeal from a final judgment provides an adequate remedy to address the legal propriety of such orders denying discovery.
[1] An order denying a motion to compel discovery is not appropriate for certiorari review when plenary appeal provides an adequate remedy.
[2] Discovery orders that preclude discovery are reviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 order under attack is not appropriate for certiorari review because plenary appeal provides an adequate remedy to address the legal propriety of an order precluding discovery.”
Establishes the primary holding that discovery orders are not reviewable by certiorari when direct appeal is available.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRamona Calfin is the plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit arising from a motor vehicle accident. The defendant has admitted liability, leaving only …
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 Plenary Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Ramona Calfin is the plaintiff in a personal injury suit arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Defendant has admitted liability, so the only issue remaining for trial is that of damages. Petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order denying her motion to compel the defendant to produce photographs of the accident scene. The defendant had objected to the production of the photographs on the basis of the work product privilege.
The order under attack is not appropriate for certiorari review because plenary appeal provides an adequate remedy to address the legal propriety of an order precluding discovery. National Beverage Suppliers, Inc. v. Esquire Products of Fla., Inc., 493 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986); MacArthur v. Moffett, 340 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert, denied, 348 So. 2d 949 (Fla.1977). Petitioner’s reliance on Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Hill, 388 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), is misplaced. In United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Graham, 404 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), rev. denied, Caldwellr-Scott Constr. Co. Inc. v. Graham, 419 So. 2d 1195 (Fla.), rev. dis missed, U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Graham, 419 So. 2d 1201 (Fla.1982), this court certified conflict with Travelers Indemnity. In Graham, this court held that an order denying a motion to compel settlement and an order denying a motion to compel discovery were not subject to certiorari review, since the latter can be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment. Id. at 864.
Because the petitioner has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm not remediable on direct appeal, the petition for certiorari is dismissed.
PARIENTE, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Power Plant Ent., LLC v. Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Dev. Co., LLC, 958 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ncluded that it was justified under the facts. This court, on the other hand, has consistently maintained the view that “plenary appeal provides an adequate remedy to address the legal propriety of an order precluding discovery.” Calfin v. McInnis, 683 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) and cases cited. Because we conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm which cannot be remedied on final appeal, we dismiss the petition. This court has not always adhered to our current position of not…
-
Barrett v. Callaway, 842 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…cluded that it was justified under the facts. This court, on the other hand, has consistently maintained the view that “plenary appeal provides an adequate remedy to address the legal propriety of an order precluding discovery.” Calfin v. McInnis, 683 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) and cases cited. Because we conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate irreparable harm which cannot be remedied on final appeal, we dismiss the petition. WARNER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
-
Whitney Info. Network v. Council OF Better Bus. Bureaus, Inc., 957 So. 2d 119 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…petitioner to seek court approval prior to further discovery. ' We are dismissing for lack of jurisdiction based on earlier cases from this court holding that this court does not review by certiorari an order precluding discovery. Calfin v. McInnis, 683 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) and cases cited. Barrett v. Callaway, 842 So. 2d 1056 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). The rationale of these cases is that the error can be corrected on appeal from final judgment and therefore the irreparable damage requirement for grantin…
Authorities Cited
- United States Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Graham, 404 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- 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)
- Nat'l Bev. Suppliers, Inc. v. Esquire Prods. OF Fla., Inc., 493 So. 2d 551 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- MacARTHUR v. Adeline K. Moffett, 340 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)