NORTHRUP GRUMMAN CORPORATION, ETC., PETITIONER,
v.
PAULEN SWOPE, ETC., 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.
Northrup Grumman's petition for certiorari is granted and discovery orders are quashed because the plaintiff's bill of discovery requests exceeded proper scope by seeking work product beyond what is necessary to identify defendants and theories of liability.
A bill of discovery must be limited to information necessary for the plaintiff to identify potential defendants, theories of liability, and understand how an accident occurred, and cannot be used as a fishing expedition or to compel production of work product.
[1] A bill of discovery is limited to discovery necessary to identify potential defendants, theories of liability, and information about how an accident occurred, and cannot…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“A bill of discovery may not be used 'as a fishing expedition to see if causes of action exist.'”
The court cited this principle to establish the outer boundary of permissible discovery in a bill of discovery action.
Northrup Grumman Corporation received discovery requests in an action brought against it for an equitable bill of discovery. Northrup complied with mu…
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 Bill Of Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Northrup Grumman Corporation petitions for certiorari review of discovery orders requiring it to produce documents and answer interrogatories in an action brought against it for an equitable bill of discovery. Northrup has complied with much of the discovery requests, but has asserted that further compliance would go beyond the scope of a bill of discovery and would require them to submit data acquired as work product.
We agree that Northrup has submitted information to the plaintiff that meets the scope of a bill of discovery so that the latter may identify potential defendants, theories of liability, and gain information sufficient to determine the manner in which the accident occurred. See Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 694 F.Supp. 889, 892 (S.D.Fla.1988); Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. v. Hegwood, 569 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990). A bill of discovery may not be used “as a fishing expedition to see if causes of action exist.” Mendez v. Cochran, 700 So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), quoting Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Frazier, 696 So. 2d 1369, 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). We grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the discovery orders under review.
PETITION GRANTED; ORDERS QUASHED.
GRIFFIN, C. J., and DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
DELTA Health Grp., Inc. v. Williams, 780 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…up, Inc. seeks cer-tiorari review of an order overruling its objection to an interrogatory. We have jurisdiction to review interlocutory orders compelling responses to interrogatories. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(2); Northrup Grumman Corp. v. Swope, 717 So. 2d 213 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); National Security Fire and Casualty Co. v. Dunn, 705 So. 2d 605 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). We grant the petition, quash the order and remand. Betty Williams, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Johnnie Jackson, filed an actio…
Authorities Cited
- Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. v. Hegwood, 569 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Mendez v. Cochran, 700 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Glickman v. State, 696 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Publix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Zarkia T. Frazier, 696 So. 2d 1369 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 694 F. Supp. 889 (S.D. Fla. 1988)