YOUNG CIRCLE GARAGE LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, PETITIONER,
v.
FRANKLIN D. KOPPEL, INDIVIDUALLY, HOME EQUITY MORTGAGE CORPORATION, A FLORIDA CORPORATION, HART DISTRICT, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, HART DISTRICT, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, HART DISTRICT II, LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, HART DISTRICT II, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, HOLLYWOOD COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, A NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION, MARK H. KLEIN, INDIVIDUALLY, AND DRAWER, KLEIN & MANDELL, LLP, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP, 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.
Young Circle Garage LLC sought writs of certiorari to challenge two pretrial discovery orders in its action to quiet title and cancel a mortgage. The Fourth District Court of Appeal rejected Young Circle's claims that the discovery orders departed from the essential requirements of law, finding that the trial court's broad discretion in determining discovery scope and assessing relevancy was properly exercised.
The court affirmed that the trial court's discovery orders did not depart from the essential requirements of law. The court held that ordering discovery on grounds of alleged irrelevance alone does not justify certiorari relief, and that a party's finances are discoverable if relevant to disputed issues, with financial information not excepted from discovery under relevancy rules.
[1] Certiorari review of a discovery order is appropriate when the order departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury throughout the remainder of t…
[2] A trial court possesses broad discretion in determining the scope of allowable discovery.
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“Review of a discovery order by certiorari is appropriate when a discovery order departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury to a petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.”
Establishes the standard for granting certiorari relief from discovery orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceYoung Circle Garage LLC, the plaintiff, alleged that Franklin Koppel falsely represented himself as Young Circle's sole managing member to obtain a lo…
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 Certiorari Review Of Discovery Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
In these two consolidated petitions for writs of certiorari, Young Circle Garage LLC challenges pretrial discovery orders in ongoing litigation in the circuit court.
The first petition challenges an April 11, 2005 order that compels Young Circle to answer certain, interrogatories; the second petition challenges a June 3, 2005 order granting respondent’s motion for sanctions for failure to comply with the April 11 discovery order. Young Circle is the plaintiff in an action seeking to quiet title, to cancel a mortgage, and for other relief. The complaint alleges that Young Circle owns real property in Broward County, that respondent, Franklin Koppel, falsely represented himself as the sole managing member of Young Circle to obtain a loan from respondent Home Equity Mortgage Corporation, and that Koppel executed a sales contract on behalf of Young Circle to sell the property to Hart District II, LLC, which assumed the mortgage.
Home Equity propounded a set of interrogatories to which Young Circle objected. The trial court entered the April 11 order directing Young Circle to answer specific interrogatories in specific ways. In some instances, the court limited the scope of the questions. The June 3, 2005 sanctions order feqhired compliance with the April 11 order and assessed attorney’s fees and costs “associated with the [mjotion” for sanctions, “[without prejudice to [Young Circle] to demonstrate ... that it in fact fully answered the interrogatories.”
Review of a discovery order “by certiorari -is appropriate when a discovery order departs from the essential requirements of law, causing material injury to a petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995) (internal citations omitted). The trial court possesses broad discretion in determining the scope of allowable discovery. E.g., Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 641 So. 2d 855 (Fla.1994). The imposition of sanctions for discovery violations is a matter which falls within the discretion of the trial court. E.g., Mercer v. Raine, 443 So. 2d 944, 946 (Fla.1983).
We reject Young Circle’s claim that the discovery order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law because it compels the production of information which is irrelevant to the lawsuit. That ordered discovery is irrelevant is not, without more, a basis for granting certiorari relief. See Allstate Ins. Co., 655 So. 2d at 94. Young Circle has demonstrated neither that the disclosure of materials mil reasonably cause material injury of an irreparable nature, nor that responding to the requested discovery will constitute an undue burden. See Topp Telecom, Inc. v. Atkins, 763 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). To the claim that the discovery order violates a right of privacy, we note that a “party’s finances, if relevant to the disputed issues of the underlying action, are not excepted from discovery under [a] rule of relevancy, and courts will, compel production of personal financial documents and information if shown to be relevant by the requesting party.” Friedman v. Heart Inst. of Port St. Lucie, 863 So. 2d 189, 194 (Fla.2003). The trial court’s determination of relevancy was within its broad discretion so that certiorari relief is not appropriate.
STEVENSON, C.J., and HAZOURI, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Jane DOE & Jane Doe, 964 So. 2d 713 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…f the law, (2) resulting in material injury that (3) cannot be corrected on direct appeal). However, the fact that the “ordered discovery is irrelevant is not, vnthout more, a basis for granting certiorari relief.” Young Circle Garage LLC v. Koppel, 916 So. 2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)(emphasis added). In the instant case, RCCL submits that certiorari relief is appropriate because the ordered discovery requires the production of privileged work-product documents; the ordered discovery is not relevant; and…
-
Banco Latino (S.A.C.A.) v. Kimberly, 979 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…discovery order departs from the essential requirements of the law, causing material injury to a petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below and effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.’” Young Circle Garage, LLC v. Koppel, 916 So. 2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (quoting Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94 (Fla.1995)). The petitioner argues that if compelled to respond to Kimberly’s discovery requests, it will be materially harmed because the information sought is certai…
-
Villella v. Ansin, 263 So. 3d 823 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…ividual is bound by that and will – whether it will affect the publishing of the memoirs. 5 The trial court has broad discretion to determine the scope of allowable discovery in a civil proceeding. See Young Circle Garage LLC v. Koppel, 916 So. 2d 22, 23 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). On this record, where the trial court has not finally resolved whether Villella may obtain the discovery he seeks – choosing, instead, to first decide what may be an outcome-determinative, dispositive issue – we conclude…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mercer v. J.D. Raine, Sr., 443 So. 2d 944 (Fla. 1983)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995)
- Kenneth Friedman, M.D. v. Heart Inst. OF Port ST. Lucie, Inc., 863 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2003)
- Topp Telecom, Inc. v. Atkins, 763 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Rojas v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., 641 So. 2d 855 (Fla. 1994)