MEGAFLIGHT, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND CONVERSION CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
ROBERT EUGENE LAMB, ET AL., 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.
Megaflight and Conversion sought a writ of certiorari to overturn a trial court's denial of their motion for a protective order against overbroad discovery of bank records. The appellate court denied the writ, finding that while the discovery request was broad, it was not sufficiently improper to warrant certiorari intervention, particularly since relevant documents like deposited checks had already been produced.
The court denied the petition for writ of certiorari, concluding that while the discovery request may have been overbroad, this was not an appropriate case for appellate interference through certiorari, particularly because relevant documents like deposited checks had already been produced and such checks directly address the purpose of the discovery.
[1] Discovery orders requiring overbroad production of non-privileged documents are subject to certiorari review more cautiously than orders compelling discovery of privilege…
[2] A party's assertion of ignorance regarding the disposition of funds does not automatically justify broad discovery of corporate bank records.
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“the threshold question still has to be whether the documents in question were reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence”
Establishes the legal standard for discoverable materials in discovery disputes
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRon Rosenberg, an officer of both Megaflight and Conversion, testified at his deposition that he removed engines from an aircraft belonging to co-defe…
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 Admissible Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, J.
Petitioners, Megaflight, Inc. [“Megaf-light”] and Conversion Corp. [“Conversion”], seek a petition for certiorari directed to the order of the lower court denying their motion for protective order. Respondent, JB International, Inc. [“JBI”], served notices of production from non-parties on two banks that held the accounts of petitioners. Essentially, what respondent sought was every bank record of these two corporations for an approximate seven and one-half month period of time. Petitioners sought a protective order, which the lower court denied. Our view of the portion of the record below that has been supplied to us offers no basis for the court allowing this discovery to go forward and the respondent’s response to the petition for writ of certiorari offers nothing that makes any sense.
JBI explains that Ron Rosenberg [“Rosenberg”], an officer of both Megaf-light and Conversion, testified at his deposition that he took the engines off an aircraft belonging to a co-defendant, B90 King Group, L.L.C. [“B90”], and sold them. B90 purportedly contends that Rosenberg was supposed to purchase replacement engines for B90 with the proceeds of the sale. Because he did not, B90 contends it is entitled to have the engines from JBI’s aircraft. The complaint simply says that petitioner removed respondent’s engines without permission and won’t return them, giving rise to a claim for re-plevin and damages. Purportedly, when asked during his deposition what happened to the proceeds of the sale of B90’s engines, Rosenberg testified that he did not know and ventured that it would be necessary to check the corporation’s bank records to answer the question. Such an answer, of course, would not justify discovery of the corporations’ bank records. The threshold question still has to be whether the documents in question were reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. Even if this test is met, it is unclear why discovery was not limited to documents involving those transactions.
Nevertheless, we agree with those who suggest that erroneous orders that require overbroad discovery of non-privileged documents should be subjected to certiorari review more cautiously than erroneous orders requiring discovery of confidential or privileged matters. In this case, the parties inform us that because petitioner did not seek a stay, many of the documents requested have already been produced and of those that have not, “copies of checks deposited” is a major category. If the purpose of this discovery is to ascertain what petitioner did with the engine sale proceeds, “checks deposited” is the first place to look. We, therefore, conclude that this is not an appropriate case for the court to interfere with the proceedings below by issuance of the writ.
WRIT DENIED.
DAUKSCH and PETERSON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 2012)…ted. In Katzman, the Fourth District added that appellate courts should not provide certiorari review for orders that deny “a party’s over-breadth or burden-someness objections to discovery.” See 76 So. 3d at 1062; see also Megaflight, Inc. v. Lamb, 749 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (“[W]e agree with those who suggest that erroneous orders that require over-broad discovery of nonprivileged documents should be subjected to certiorari review more cautiously than erroneous orders requiring discovery of con…
-
Rousso v. Hannon, 146 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…ies wholly unrelated to the litigation. Discovery orders that require the disclosure of claimed confidential information are reviewed with greater caution than those that are simply burdensome or costly due to overbreadth. Me-gaflight, Inc. v. Lamb, 749 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (“[W]e agree with those who suggest that erroneous orders that require overbroad discovery of non-privileged documents should be subjected to certiorari review more cautiously than erroneous orders requiring discovery of con…
-
Coral Gables Chiropractic PLLC v. United Auto. Ins. Co., 199 So. 3d 292 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…st that erroneous orders that require overbroad discovery of nonprivileged documents should be subjected to certiorari review more cautiously than erroneous orders requiring discovery of confidential or privileged matters.” Megaflight, Inc. v. Lamb, 749 So. 2d 594, 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); accord Nucci, 162 So. 3d at 151. Because there is no privileged information at issue here, it is clear that granting Gables Chiropractic’s petition for second-tier certiorari relief is not merited. We conclude that UAIC “m…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence