JM FAMILY ENTERPRISES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, AND WORLD OMNI FINANCIAL CORP., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND SOUTHEAST TOYOTA DISTRIBUTORS, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, PATRICIA G. MORAN, CHRISTINE B. COYLE, AND GARY THOMAS, PETITIONERS,
v.
ROSS M. FREEMAN AND KELLI A. FREEMAN, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the denial of a motion to dismiss a complaint seeking a pure bill of discovery. The court held that pre-suit discovery should not be available merely to allow parties to investigate potential claims before filing suit, as modern liberal discovery rules make such equitable remedies rare.
The court held that respondents are not entitled to a pure bill of discovery. Modern liberal rules of civil procedure have made pure bills of discovery relatively rare, and such bills may not be used as a fishing expedition to investigate whether causes of action exist or to preview discovery that would be available after filing suit.
[1] A pure bill of discovery is an equitable remedy that should be used only in rare circumstances, especially given the liberal discovery rules available in modern civil pro…
[2] A pure bill of discovery cannot be used as a fishing expedition to determine if causes of action exist.
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“We conclude that if Respondents are entitled to a pure bill of discovery in this case, the same would be available in virtually every case.”
Establishes the court's concern that granting the pure bill would create an impermissible general right to pre-suit discovery.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRespondents filed a complaint seeking discovery before filing a civil action against their employers and related parties. Respondents sought to invest…
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.
Petitioners seek review of a non-final order denying their motion to dismiss Respondents’ complaint in equity for a pure bill of discovery. We grant the petition.
Respondents filed this complaint against Petitioners-Kelli Freeman’s employer, Ross Freeman’s former employer, and other persons related to their employment— seeking to discover additional facts before filing the civil action they contemplate filing against them in connection with Ross’ being fired from his employment and Kelli’s not receiving promotions for which she believes she was qualified. They assert in great detail the bases for their suspicions that they have claims against various of the petitioners, including discrimination based on age, marital status, and religion, defamation, conspiracy, and tortious interference with a business relationship.
Respondents’ stated purpose for the pre-suit discovery was to determine whether they have non-frivolous grounds, and which ones, and against which defendants. Petitioners moved to dismiss, noting that both Respondents had already filed discrimination charges against the employers with the Florida Commission on Human Relations and the .U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and arguing that, with the specificity of the claims detailed in the complaint, Respondents do not lack a good faith basis to file a complaint for damages absent ,the discovery sought in the complaint.
We conclude that if Respondents are entitled to a pure bill of discovery in this case, the same would be available in virtually every case. Respondents’ only reason for seeking discovery by means of the pure bill, rather than filing a civil action against Petitioners and then proceeding with discovery in that context, is their reluctance to become exposed to claims for the other parties’ attorneys fees in filing a frivolous lawsuit without first determining what, if any, evidence supports their grounds for recovery.
We grant the petition and quash the order denying the motion to dismiss. While we agree that the pure bill of discovery has not been abrogated by the later adoption of liberal rules of discovery, see First Nat’l Bank of Miami v. Dade-Broward Co., 125 Fla. 594, 171 So. 510 (Fla. 1936), we agree with Petitioners that its use should now be relatively rare. “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 at 1371 [(Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ]. Neither is it available simply to obtain a preview of discovery obtainable once suit is filed. Such a use of the bill places an undue burden on the court system. See National Car Rental v. Sanchez, 349 So. 2d 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Mendez v. Cochran, 700 So. 2d 46, 47 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (emphasis added). In Mendez, we concluded that there was nothing in the record distinguishing the plaintiffs claim from that of others who would use the same investigation tool “to seek information that might uncover a potential claim.” Id. (citing Publix Supermarkets, 696 So. 2d at 1370-71). Compare Adventist Health System/Sunbelt, Inc. v. Hegwood, 569 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990) (pure bill of discovery granted and certiorari denied where mother needed discovery to obtain expert opinion to satisfy pre-suit requirement in medical malpractice case). Likewise, nothing in the instant record demonstrates Respondents’ particular need for a pure bill of discovery.
Accordingly, we quash the order denying Petitioners’ motion to dismiss.
WARNER, C.J., STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kirlin v. Green, 955 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…that context, is [her] reluctance to become exposed to claims for [Petitioners’] attorneys fees in filing a frivolous lawsuit without first determining what, if any, evidence supports [her] grounds for recovery.” JM Family Enters., Inc. v. Freeman, 758 So. 2d 1175, 1176 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). This is not the purpose of a pure bill of discovery. We agree with the Fourth District’s decision in Freeman that allowing a pure bill of discovery under these circumstances would require allowing it “in virtually every c…
-
Am. Med. Sys., LLC v. MSP Recovery Claims, 290 So. 3d 548 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…(Fla. 2012))). D. Petitioners’ reliance on pure bill of discovery cases where it is unclear whether the challenged non-final orders required production of discovery Petitioners rely principally on two cases – JM Family Enterprises, Inc. v. Freeman, 758 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) and Debt Settlement Administrators, LLC v. Antigua and Barbuda, 950 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) – to support their argument that, as stated in Petitioners’ reply in opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss, “the fact that t…
-
Debt Settlement Administrators, LLC v. Antigua AND Barbuda, 950 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…to quash the trial court’s order denying its motion to dismiss a complaint for a pure bill of discovery. This Court has jurisdiction. See, e.g., Megaflight, Inc. v. Lamb, 749 So. 2d 594 (Fla. 5th DCA [*465] 2000); JM Family Enters., Inc. v. Freeman, 758 So. 2d 1175 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). We grant the Petition for Writ of Certiora-ri. Prior to the filing of the instant action for a pure bill of discovery in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, respondents, the governments of Anti…
Previewing 3 of 10 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)
- Trak Microwave Corp. v. Culley, 728 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- 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)