TIME INTERNATIONAL, S.A., INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND RUBINA DE MEXICO, S.A., A MEXICAN CORPORATION, PETITIONERS,
v.
SAFILO U.S.A., INC., A FOREIGN CORPORATION D/B/A SAFILO LATIN AMERICA, 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.
Time International and Rubina de Mexico petitioned for a writ of certiorari to quash a discovery sanction requiring production of a former employee witness or face exclusion of that witness's testimony at trial with an adverse presumption. The Third District Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that the sanction was within the trial court's discretion and justified by the plaintiffs' long-standing obstruction of discovery.
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the witness exclusion sanction. Although exclusion is a drastic remedy that should be used only in compelling circumstances, the plaintiffs' years of obstruction and refusal to cooperate in producing the witness, combined with a finding of wrongdoing, justified this sanction.
[1] A trial court has discretion to impose sanctions for discovery violations, including the exclusion of a witness's testimony.
[2] Exclusion of a witness's testimony is a drastic remedy that should be employed only in compelling circumstances.
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“the exclusion of a witness's testimony is a drastic remedy which should be utilized only under the most compelling circumstances”
Establishes the stringent standard for witness exclusion sanctions, citing Vega v. CSCS Int'l, N.V.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTime International and Rubina de Mexico were involved in litigation against Safilo U.S.A., Inc. that began in 1992 and had been pending for over seven…
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 Exclusion Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
SHEVIN, Judge.
Plaintiff, Time International, S.A., Inc., and Rubina de Mexico, S.A., [collectively “plaintiffs”] petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the portion of an order requiring production of a witness, a former employee, or suffer exclusion of the witness at trial, with an accompanying adverse presumption to plaintiffs’ position at trial from the witness’s testimony. We deny the petition.
In Time International S. A., Inc. v. Safilo U.S.A., Inc., 802 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001), review denied, 823 So. 2d 125 (Fla.2002), we reversed a dismissal order, holding that sanction to be too severe in the face of plaintiffs’ disregard of discovery orders. However, we remanded for the court to “exercise its discretion to impose sanctions other than dismissal.” Time, 802 So. 2d at 383. The new sanction we review here is not as severe as the ultimate sanction of dismissal, and is within the court’s discretion.
Although plaintiffs may not have any control over the witness at this time because the witness left their employ in 1999, this litigation had been pending for over seven years by that point. Defendant had requested information intended to locate the sought-after witness since the litigation began in 1992, and plaintiffs have been obstreperous in their refusal to cooperate and produce the witness. See Time Int’l, S.A., Inc. We recognize that “the exclusion of a witness’s testimony is a drastic remedy which should be utilized only under the most compelling circumstances.” Vega v. CSCS Int’l, N.V., 795 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
However, in this case there was a finding of wrongdoing by plaintiffs, who are being sanctioned. Vega, 795 So. 2d at 167, and cases cited therein. While exclusion is a drastic remedy, even the plaintiffs will agree that it is not as severe as dismissal, and plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable harm if the order striking the witness is not quashed. Sardinas v. Lagares, 805 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). This case presents just such a compelling circumstance justifying the exclusion of the witness’s testimony. We therefore conclude that there has been no departure from the essential requirements of law and deny the writ.
Certiorari denied.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Sardinas v. Claridania Lagares, 805 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Jackson v. State, 795 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Vega v. CSCS Int'l, N.V., 795 So. 2d 164 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Time Int'l, S.A., Inc. v. Safilo U.S.A., Inc., 802 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)