STIHL SOUTHEAST, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
GREEN THUMB LAWN & GARDEN CENTER NEWCO, INC., 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.
Stihl Southeast sought certiorari review of a discovery order it challenged as overbroad and burdensome. The trial court orally imposed reasonable geographical and time limitations on the discovery request, but the written order prepared by opposing counsel failed to reflect these limitations, rendering the compelled discovery patently overbroad and contrary to the essential requirements of law.
Certiorari is an appropriate remedy for discovery orders that compel compliance with patently overbroad discovery requests. The written discovery order here was overbroad because it failed to reflect the trial judge's oral limitations regarding time period and geographical scope.
[1] Certiorari is an appropriate remedy for discovery orders that compel compliance with patently overbroad discovery requests.
[2] A written discovery order that does not conform to the trial court's oral pronouncements may be considered patently overbroad and contrary to the essential requirements o…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“certiorari is not available to remedy every erroneous discovery order, [it] is an appropriate remedy for discovery orders that compel compliance with patently overbroad discovery requests”
Establishes the standard for when certiorari is available to challenge 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 intelligenceThe trial court conducted a hearing on Stihl's objections to Green Thumb's document production requests. The trial judge orally ruled to overrule obje…
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 Overbroad Discovery Requests cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant below, Stihl Southeast, Inc., seeks certiorari review of a discovery order on the grounds that the compelled discovery is overbroad, burdensome and contrary to the essential requirements of law. Although certiorari is not available to remedy every erroneous discovery order, it is an appropriate remedy for discovery orders that compel compliance with patently overbroad discovery requests. See Life Care Centers of America v. Reese, 948 So. 2d 830, 832 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); Tanchel v. Shoemaker, 928 So. 2d 440, 442 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).
In the present case, the trial court held a hearing on Stihl’s objections to Green Thumb’s request for production of documents. For purposes of this opinion, it is unnecessary to discuss the nature of the underlying litigation or the specific discovery requests in dispute. It is sufficient to observe that at the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court stated:
I’m going to overrule the objections in part, and sustain the objections in part. The events complained of occurred prior to August 2004, so the period of time from 2000 to August 2004 is a reasonable period of time. They don’t have to ... respond with respect to correspondence or documents after that time.
Furthermore, the area in Florida would be relevant. But nationwide, I don’t believe, would be relevant. So I mil limit your production in those two ways.
(Emphasis added.)
If the ensuing written order conformed with the trial court’s oral pronouncements, we would find that Stihl had failed to show that the trial court had departed from the essential requirements of law. Unfortunately, the written order (apparently prepared by Green Thumb’s counsel) did not set forth the geographical and time limitations verbally imposed by the trial judge. As a result, the compelled discovery was patently overbroad and was contrary to the essential requirements of law. Accordingly, we grant the petition. On remand, the trial court is directed to enter a written order which conforms to its oral pronouncement.
Petition GRANTED; Order QUASHED.
PALMER, C.J., ORFINGER and EVANDER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund v. Am. Educ. Enters., LLC, 99 So. 3d 450 (Fla. 2012)…quash the decision of the Third District in AEE. We disapprove of other decisions that have provided certiorari relief on the basis of overbreadth including, but not limited to, Stihl Southeast, Inc. v. Green Thumb Lawn & Garden Center Newco, Inc., 974 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Caterpillar Industrial Inc. v. Keskes, 639 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); First City Developments of Florida v. Hallmark of Hollywood Condominium Assoc., Inc., 545 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Redland Co. v. Atlantic Civil,…
-
Am. Educ. Enters., LLC v. Bd. OF Trs. OF the Internal Improvement Tr. Fund, 45 So. 3d 941 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…aterpillar Indus., Inc. v. Keskes, 639 So. 2d 1129, 1129 n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)); Caribbean Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Sec. Control Sys., Inc., 486 So. 2d 654, 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); see also Stihl Se., Inc. v. Green Thumb Lawn & Garden Ctr. Newco, Inc., 974 So. 2d 1200, 1201 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. v. Doe, 964 So. 2d 713, 719 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). The issue whether a discovery order is overbroad must be determined within the context of the facts of each case. See Computer Solutions, Inc. v…1 / 2
-
Nationwide Ins. Co. OF Fla. v. Albertha Nelson, 83 So. 3d 863 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)…ghout the remainder of the proceedings, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal.’ ” Id. at 999 (citing Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91, 94-95 (Fla.1995)). See also Stihl Se. Inc. v. Green Thumb Lawn & Garden Center Newco, Inc., 974 So. 2d 1200 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). In this case, the trial court’s discovery order meets the criteria for certiorari relief. Accordingly, we grant Nationwide’s petition and quash the trial court’s order. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Binder, 746 So. 2d 1255 (Fla. 5th…
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
- Nancy A. Tanchel, M.D. v. Shoemaker, 928 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Life Care Ctrs. OF Am. v. Reese, 948 So. 2d 830 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)