COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., PETITIONER,
v.
ANTHONY DEFILIPPO, 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.
Costco sought certiorari review of a circuit court order that partially overruled its discovery objections and directed production of accident records for three years prior to the incident at issue. The appellate court granted the petition and quashed the trial court's order, finding that the order exceeded the scope of the discovery request and violated Costco's procedural due process rights.
The trial court's order exceeded the scope of the discovery request made and violated Costco's procedural due process rights by imposing obligations not requested by the opposing party and preventing Costco from demonstrating that the records were protected by work product and other privileges.
[1] A discovery request seeking information on prior accidents at a premises is overbroad and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence if it…
[2] A trial court may order the production of records for previous accidents resulting in injury when a claim or lawsuit was filed, but only for a period relevant to the fact…
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“The circuit court order partially overruled Costco's objection to this interrogatory on the grounds that the court was simultaneously directing Costco to provide all records for three years before the acci [*999] dent related to previous accidents resulting in injury when a claim or lawsuit was filed as a result.”
Describes the trial court's order that exceeded the scope of discovery requests made
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnthony Defilippo sued Costco for negligence after a Costco employee allegedly dropped a table on his foot. Defilippo propounded interrogatories and r…
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 Reasonably Calculated To Lead To Admissible Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco) petitioned for certiorari review of a Palm Beach County Circuit Court order which denied in part its objections to an interrogatory and request for production from respondent/plaintiff Anthony Defilip-po in a personal injury lawsuit. Defilippo had sued Costco for negligence, alleging that a Costco employee dropped a table on his foot. He propounded interrogatories and a request for production.
The interrogatories included a question as to whether there had been any accidents at the subject premises within three years of the incident, and if so, the location, description of how it occurred, and other related information including the status of any claims or lawsuits for the accidents. Costco objected to that interrogatory as overbroad, burdensome, harassing, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence because it asked for information on accidents not relevant to the facts in this case, as it would include slip and fall incidents and other unrelated events.
The circuit court order partially overruled Costco’s objection to this interrogatory on the grounds that the court was simultaneously directing Costco to provide all records for three years before the acci dent related to previous accidents resulting in injury when a claim or lawsuit was filed as a result.
Costco argues in its petition for writ of certiorari that no request for production of such documents was ever made. The request for production asked for the subject incident report and associated information. Petitioner Costco argues that the trial court order exceeded that request, denying its procedural due process rights of notice and an opportunity to be heard on this issue. Also, Costco argues that it was denied the right to demonstrate that the records now ordered to be produced are protected from discovery by work product and other privileges and grounds for objection.
In response to this court’s order to show cause as to why the petition should not be granted, respondent Defilippo has advised that he does not contest this petition. Accordingly, we grant the petition for writ of certiorari and quash the trial court’s order. STONE, WARNER and POLEN, JJ., concur.