VERIZON BUSINESS NETWORK SERVICES, INC., ON BEHALF OF MCI COMMUNICATIONS, INC., D/B/A VERIZON BUSINESS SERVICES; GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION; AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC., PETITIONERS,
v.
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 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.
Verizon Business Network Services and related companies petitioned for interlocutory review of an administrative law judge's order denying their motion to compel production of documents. The Florida District Court of Appeal held that discovery disputes are generally not reviewable before final agency action absent irreparable harm, and found no exceptional circumstances warranting interlocutory review here.
Petitioners are not entitled to interlocutory review of the ALJ's order because they failed to demonstrate that review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy. Orders denying discovery are generally not reviewable before final agency action absent irreparable harm and exceptional circumstances.
[1] Orders denying discovery are generally not reviewable by interlocutory certiorari due to the absence of irreparable harm.
[2] To obtain interlocutory review of a non-final administrative order, petitioners must demonstrate that review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate re…
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“orders having the effect of denying discovery are almost invariably not reviewable by certiorari because of the absence of irreparable harm”
Establishes the general rule that discovery denials are not subject to interlocutory review absent irreparable harm
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioners sought to compel production of documents in an administrative proceeding before the Division of Administrative Hearings. The ALJ denie…
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 Privilege Log cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., Global TePLink Corporation, and Public Communications Services, Inc., petition for review of a non-final order of an administrative law judge (ALJ) of the Division of Administrative Hearings that denied their renewed motion to compel production of documents. We deny the petition.
In Boyd v. Pheo, Inc., 664 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), this court observed that “orders having the effect of denying discovery are almost invariably not reviewable by certiorari because of the absence of irreparable harm.”. Id. at 295. Although Boyd dealt with a petition for writ of certiorari, the “irreparable harm” analysis is also applicable to a petition for review of non-final administrative action. To establish an entitlement to interlocutory review of a non-final administrative order, petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy. See § 120.68(1), Fla. Stat. (2007). Boyd does recognize that there may be some limited exceptions to this géneral rule, and indeed, other Florida courts have undertaken extraordinary interlocutory, review in • circumstances where there would be no practical way to determine after judgment what the withheld evidence would have been and how it would have affected the result. See, e.g., Beekie v. Morgan, 751 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). Such would not appear to be the case here, however, since the disputed documents are identified in a privilege log and were reviewed in-camera by the-ALJ. Thus, the issue can be meaningfully addressed on appeal and an appropriate remedy fashioned if it is concluded that the ALJ’s ruling was in error. Accordingly, as petitioners have failed to demonstrate that review of the . final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy, we decline to undertake review at this point.
The petition for review is DENIED.
BROWNING, C.J., KAHN and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Agency FOR Health Care Admin. v. S. Broward Hosp. Dist., 206 So. 3d 826 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…1, 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001). This means that AHCA “bear[s] the burden of demonstrating that review of the final agency decision would not provide an adequate remedy.” Verizon Bus. Network Servs., Inc., ex rel. MCI Commc’ns, Inc, v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 960 So. 2d 916, 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). If AHCA fails to make this prima facie showing of irreparable harm, its petition must be dismissed “for lack of jurisdiction.” Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. AFO Imaging, Inc., 46 So. 3d 140, 141 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010); see als…
-
Delasol v. Lenka Vojtiskova (Fla. 1st DCA 2022)…(Fla. 1st DCA 2016) (“Because there is no prima facie showing of irreparable harm, AHCA is not entitled to our evaluation of the non-final agency order.”); see also Verizon Bus. Network Servs., Inc. ex rel. MCI Commc’ns, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 960 So. 2d 916, 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (“[T]he [certiorari] ‘irreparable harm’ analysis is also applicable to a petition for review of non-final administrative action.”). Based on the foregoing, we dismiss the appeal and deny all pending motions as moot. DISMISSE…
Authorities Cited
- Herman v. Herman, 751 So. 2d 694 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Boyd v. Pheo, Inc., 664 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)