TRIPLE FISH AMERICA, INC., TEAM FISH AMERICA, INC., AND KENNETH A. SMITH & ASSOCIATES, INC., ET. AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
TRIPLE FISH INTERNATIONAL, L.C., AND MYLON SLONEK GMBH & CO. KG, 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.
Triple Fish America and related entities sought certiorari review of a trial court order granting a protective order to Dietmar Slonek, a German resident and non-party, requiring depositions to occur in Germany rather than Florida. The court denied the petition, holding that because petitioners failed to properly designate Slonek as a corporate officer in the deposition notice, he was entitled to protective order status as an individual non-party.
The trial court properly granted the protective order. Because petitioners failed to designate Slonek as a corporate officer by either noticing the deposition through the corporation or identifying him in the deposition notice as an officer, director, or managing agent, Slonek retained his status as an individual non-party entitled to protective order relief.
[1] A trial court may grant a protective order to prevent an undue burden or expense on a non-party witness required to travel for a deposition.
[2] A party seeking to depose a corporate officer in the forum where the action is pending must properly designate the individual as an officer, director, or managing agent i…
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“Normally, officers of a plaintiff corporation are required to attend a properly noticed deposition in the forum where the action is pending.”
Establishes the general rule regarding corporate officer deposition attendance that petitioners invoked
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioners, defendants in the underlying action, noticed the deposition of Dietmar Slonek, a German citizen and resident, for examination in Orlando,…
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 Notice Of Deposition cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioners seek certiorari review of the trial court’s order granting appellee Dietmar Slonek’s motion for protective order and requiring petitioners to travel to Germany to take Slonek’s deposition.1 Concluding that the trial court properly granted Slonek’s motion for protective order, we deny the petition.
Petitioners, defendants below, filed their notice of taking the deposition of Dietmar Slonek, a resident of Germany, and requested his appearance in Orlando, Florida for that purpose. Slonek filed a motion for protective order alleging, among other things, that: 1) he is a citizen of Germany and resides in Germany; 2) he is not a party to the action; and 3) requiring him to travel to Orlando would constitute an undue burden and expense. The trial court granted the motion for protective order. Petitioners challenge this ruling arguing that Slonek’s request for a protective order should have been denied because Slonek was either a current or former officer of the plaintiff corporations.
Normally, officers of a plaintiff corporation are required to attend a properly noticed deposition in the forum where the action is pending. See Ormond Beach First Nat’l Bank v. J.M. Montgomery Roofing Co., 189 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), cert. denied, 200 So. 2d 813 (Fla.1967). Here, however, petitioners failed to designate Slonek as a corporate officer by either noticing the deposition of a corporation through Slonek, or identifying Slonek in the notice of taking deposition as an officer, director, or managing agent of either of the plaintiff corporations. Having failed to do so, neither of the plaintiff corporations filed a motion for protective order directed to the deposition; only Slo-nek in his individual capacity filed such a motion. On this record, it was not error for the trial court to grant Slonek’s motion for protective order. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is denied, without prejudice to petitioners properly noticing a deposition of a party plaintiff.
PETITION DENIED.
PETERSON, PALMER and TORPY, JJ., concur. . Certiorari review is available to review tried court orders requiring that depositions take place at an erroneous location. See Donahoo v. Matthews, 660 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (granting certiorari and correcting order requiring defendants to travel from Duval County to Putnam County for deposition). Accord Logitech Cargo, U.S.A., Corp. v. JW Perry, Inc., 817 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); Teledyne Indus., Inc. v. Mustang Ranch Aircraft, Inc., 753 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Ayer v. Bush, 696 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli, 621 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993); Cady v. Laws, 341 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
CVS Caremark Corp. & Gallagher Bassett Servs., Inc. v. Latour, 109 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…a non-final order granting discovery. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (Fla.1987) (“Orders granting discovery ... have traditionally been reviewed by certiorari.”); see also Triple Fish Am., Inc. v. Triple Fish Int’l, L.C., 839 So. 2d 913, 914 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“Certio-rari review is available to review trial court orders requiring that depositions take place at an erroneous location.”). To obtain relief by certiorari, the petitioner must establish more than mere legal error;…
-
Florida Highway Patrol v. Bejarano, 137 So. 3d 619 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…’s district courts have a history of affording relief from erroneous deposition-related orders by way of certiorari. See, e.g., CVS Caremark Corp. v. Latour, 109 So. 3d 1232,1234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013); Triple Fish Am., Inc. v. Triple Fish Int’l, L.C., 839 So. 2d 913, 914 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). To get relief, we have said that a petitioner must establish two things: that the challenged order will cause irreparable harm (a threshold matter which also establishes whether this Court has jurisdiction); and that t…
-
S.W. Fla. Paradise Prop., Inc. v. Segelke, 111 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…ncial information may cause irreparable harm to a person forced to disclose it, in a case in which the information is not relevant” (quoting Straub v. Matte, 805 So. 2d 99, 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002))); Triple Fish Am., Inc. v. Triple Fish Int’l, L.C., 839 So. 2d 913, 914 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (“Certiorari review is available to review trial court orders requiring that depositions take place at an erroneous location.”); see also Briggs, 392 So. 2d at 266 (observing that a nonparty has no adequate remedy for h…
Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Ormond Beach First Nat'l Bank v. J. M. Montgomery Roofing Co., Inc., 189 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966)
- Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli, 621 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- Kohly v. Royal Indem. Co., 200 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1967)
- Male v. State, 200 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 1967)
- State v. R.J., 817 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Donahoo v. Matthews, 660 So. 2d 391 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Ayer v. Bush, 696 So. 2d 1333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Teledyne Indus., Inc. v. Mustang Ranch Aircraft, Inc., 753 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Butler v. State, 753 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Cady v. Laws, 341 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)