J. MAURICE HERMAN, A/K/A MAURICE HERMAN, PETITIONER,
v.
J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES, INC. AND JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., 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.
The court quashed a trial court's blanket denial of discovery requests, finding it departed from essential requirements of law and caused material irreparable harm, and remanded for item-by-item reconsideration of the discovery requests.
A blanket denial of all discovery requests constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law resulting in material irreparable harm warranting certiorari relief.
[1] A blanket denial of all discovery requests without item-by-item consideration constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law resulting in material irrepar…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMaurice Herman sought discovery in a declaratory judgment action brought by JPMorgan Securities and JPMorgan Chase Bank, and the trial court denied hi…
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 Discovery Requests cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner J. Maurice Herman, a/k/a Maurice Herman seeks certiorari review of a trial court order denying his motion to compel production of documents and response to interrogatories. The order constituted a blanket denial of discovery requests. Petitioner has argued that this *189left him unable to defend respondents’ declaratory judgment action and unable to prosecute his counterclaim. In these circumstances, we find a departure from the essential requirements of law resulting in material harm of an irreparable nature. See Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Mem’l Hosp. Found., Inc., 8 So.3d 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Power Plant Entm’t, LLC v. Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Dev. Co., 958 So.2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).
Respondents advise that the trial court has subsequently entered a partial summary judgment on the declaratory judgment action, and allege that they have agreed to provide, or have provided, some of the requested discovery already. The latter assertion is disputed by petitioner. The former does not necessarily demonstrate that petitioner’s discovery requests and issues are now moot. Accordingly, we quash the trial court’s order denying all discovery and remand with directions to the trial court to consider these assertions in entertaining petitioner’s requests for discovery, item by item. Compare Hitchcock v. Proudfoot Consulting Co., 19 So.3d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009).
STEVENSON, MAY and CIKLIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gallagher v. State, 49 Fla. L. Weekly S215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)
Authorities Cited
- Giacalone v. Helen Ellis Mem'l Hosp. Found., Inc., 8 So. 3d 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)
- Power Plant Ent., LLC v. Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Dev. Co., LLC, 958 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)
- Hitchcock v. Proudfoot Consulting Co., 19 So. 3d 1183 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)