CHIQUITA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, PETITIONER,
v.
FRESH DEL MONTE PRODUCE, N.V., DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE INTERNATIONAL, INC., DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE COMPANY, AND DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE, INC. (JAPAN BRANCH), 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.
Chiquita International challenged the denial of a deposition request against Fresh Del Monte. The court held that under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b)(6), when deposing a corporation, the corporation itself designates which representative will testify, not the deposing party, and the deposing party must designate the matters of examination with reasonable particularity.
Under Rule 1.310(b)(6), the corporation being deposed has the right to designate which officer, director, or managing agent will testify on its behalf. If the designated representative fails to provide requested information and identifies another employee as a potential material witness, the deposing party may seek court intervention to compel the proper designee's deposition.
[1] A party seeking to depose a corporation must name the organization as the deponent and designate with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is request…
[2] When a corporation is named as a deponent, it is the corporation's responsibility to designate one or more officers, directors, managing agents, or other consenting indiv…
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“The organization so named shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to do so, to testify on its behalf and may state the matters on which each person designated will testify.”
Establishes that the corporation, not the deposing party, has the right to designate which representative will testify at a deposition.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceChiquita International sought to depose a particular corporate employee of Fresh Del Monte and failed to designate with reasonable particularity the m…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.310(b) provides for depositions upon oral examination, and explains in pertinent part:
(6) In the notice a party may name as the deponent a public or private corporation, a partnership or association, or a governmental agency, and designate with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested. The organiza tion so named shall designate one or more officers, directors, or managing agents, or other persons who consent to do so, to testify on its behalf and may state the matters on which each person designated will testify. The persons so designated shall testify about matters known or reasonably available to the organization. This subdivision does not preclude taking a deposition by any other procedure authorized in these rules.
In the instant ease, respondent correctly argues that by naming a particular corporate employee, and also by failing to designate with reasonable particularity the matters on which examination was being requested, the petitioner failed to comply with Rule 1.310(b)(6). Under this rule, it is the defendant corporation which designates the representative employee. If the corporate employee chosen in response to the appropriate motion fails to give the information requested and identifies another corporate employee as a potential material witness, then plaintiff may apply to the trial court to compel the deposition of the proper designee. See Medero v. Florida Power & Light Co., 658 So. 2d 566, 567 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (concluding relief by way of certiorari available upon finding that trial court lacked good cause to deny deposition after executive was identified in other discovery as potential material witness).
Accordingly, we deny certiorari review without prejudice to petitioner proceeding under the Rule 1.310(b)(6), as outlined above.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sybac Solar, GMBH v. 6TH St. Solar Energy Park OF Gainesville, LLC, 217 So. 3d 1068 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017)…1161. But the deposing party does not have the unilateral authority to select the corporate representative who shall testify on behalf of the corporation. Racetrac Petroleum, 150 So. 3d at 1252; Chiquita Int’l Ltd. v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, N.V., 705 So. 2d 112, 113 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998); Plantation-Simon, 596 So. 2d at 1161. Instead, the deposing party’s request to depose a specific corporate representative is subject to the circuit court’s discretion to issue a protective order. Racetrac Petroleum, 150 So.…
Authorities Cited
- Medero v. Fla. Power & Light Co., 658 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)