TRAK MICROWAVE CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH M. CULLEY, APPELLEE
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.
Trak Microwave appeals a trial court's grant of a pure bill of discovery filed by Kenneth Culley in state court. The appellate court reversed, holding that because Culley had a pending federal age discrimination lawsuit where proper discovery was available, the equitable remedy of a pure bill of discovery was no longer appropriate.
A pure bill of discovery is not appropriate when a plaintiff has a pending federal lawsuit in which proper discovery is readily obtainable. Accordingly, the trial court's grant of the discovery request was reversed.
[1] A pure bill of discovery is an equitable remedy available only in the absence of an adequate legal remedy.
[2] A pure bill of discovery cannot be used to determine whether a cause of action exists or as a fishing expedition.
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“In the absence of an adequate legal remedy, equity has long authorized a pure bill of discovery as an appropriate remedy to obtain information such as the identity of a proper party defendant or the appropriate legal theory for relief.”
Establishes the traditional equitable basis for the pure bill of discovery remedy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCulley filed an EEOC age discrimination charge against Trak on October 23, 1996. On December 5, 1996, he filed a complaint for a pure bill of discover…
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 Pure Bill Of Discovery cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Trak Microwave Corporation (Trak) appeals a final judgment granting a pure bill of discovery in an action filed by Kenneth M. Culley. We reverse because Mr. Culley had already filed a federal lawsuit in which he could obtain appropriate discovery prior to the trial court’s order in this case.
Mr. Culley filed an age discrimination charge against Trak with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on October 23, 1996. On December 5, 1996, he filed a complaint against Trak for a pure bill of discovery in circuit court. The complaint sought answers to more than twenty-five interrogatories, as well as the production of numerous documents. Thereafter, upon receipt of the EEOC’s right to sue notice, Mr. Culley filed a federal civil action for age discrimination against Trak on May 22, 1997. While the federal action was pending, the trial court granted Mr. Gulley’s request for a pure bill of discovery and entered a final judgment ordering Trak to produce the requested discovery.
In the absence of an adequate legal remedy, equity has long authorized a pure bill of discovery as an appropriate remedy to obtain information such as the identity of a proper party defendant or the appropriate legal theory for relief. See First Nat’l Bank of Miami v. Dade-Broward, Co., 125 Fla. 594, 171 So. 510 (1936); Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. v. Hegwood, 569 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 694 F.Supp. 889 (S.D.Fla.1988). However, a party may not utilize this mechanism to determine whether a cause of action exists or as a “fishing expedition.” See National Car Rental v. Sanchez, 349 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Mendez v. Cochran, 700 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Because state and federal rules of civil procedure have relaxed many of the older code pleading requirements and now authorize liberal discovery, it is rare that a party has need to invoke this equitable remedy.
In this case, we have grave doubt that Mr. Gulley’s federal presuit investigatory tools were so inadequate as to justify state intervention through equity jurisdiction. We are also inclined to conclude that Mr. Culley’s numerous interrogatories and requests for production of documents fell outside the proper scope of this equitable remedy. Among the requested items were a complete organizational chart of Trak, the line of job progression for certain departments and the entire employment file of not only department heads but also of all employees. Nevertheless, we can dispose of this case by holding that a pure bill of discovery was no longer appropriate when the plaintiff had a pending federal lawsuit in which proper discovery was readily obtainable.
We reverse and remand with instructions to dismiss the complaint.
ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and FULMER and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
JM Fam. Enters., Inc. v. Freeman, 758 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…re. “Because state and federal rules of civil procedure have relaxed many of the older code pleading requirements and now authorize liberal discovery, it is rare that a party has need to invoke this equitable remedy.” Trak Microwave Corp. v. Culley, 728 So. 2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). As this court has stated before, a pure bill in discovery may not be used “as a fishing expedition to see if causes of action exist.” Publix [Supermarkets, Inc. v. Frazier], 696 So. 2d [1369] at 1371 [(Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…
-
Kirlin v. Green, 955 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…2000). III. ANALYSIS Although the pure bill of discovery remains part of our legal system, its use and usefulness diminished greatly when Florida relaxed its pleading requirements to authorize liberal discovery. See Trak Microwave Corp. v. Culley, 728 So. 2d 1177, 1178 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). The pure bill remains available to “identify potential defendants and theories of liability,” but “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…
-
Am. Med. Sys., LLC v. MSP Recovery Claims, 290 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…ers would have an adequate remedy via plenary appeal and an accompanying stay. Id. at 758-59 (appeal of final summary judgment ordering the defendant to produce documents sought in a pure bill of discovery); see also Trak Microwave Corp. v. Culley, 728 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (appeal of a final judgment granting a pure bill of discovery).2 III. Conclusion The challenged order merely denies Petitioners’ motion to dismiss Respondents’ amended pure bill of discovery complaint. The challenged order does no…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The First Nat'l Bank of Miami v. Dade-Broward Co. & T. F. McAuliffe, 125 Fla. 594 (Fla. 1936)
- 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)
- Sunbeam Television Corp. v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 694 F. Supp. 889 (S.D. Fla. 1988)
- Rigel v. Rigel, 349 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Nat'l CAR Rental & Travelers Ins. Co. v. Sanchez, 349 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)