STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS CO

v.

HERMES HERRERA

Before ROgNEY SMITH,

VERDE, J.

FLEUR J LOBREE, and MARIA VERDE, II. sic‘ this court to quash the State Farm has filed a petition for writ of eertiomri, a mg ' ' ' ' ' for a protective order, S tember 21 2012 order whieh denies RS motion portion of a ep , ' C unt to Broward County for thereby requiring Ca deposition. We grant the petition its claims 3.d_}'t1Sl6I‘ to travel from Orange o y ' ' is the appropriate method to review a discovery “A petition for writ of eertrorari . . ' aterial order when the order departs from the essential requirements of the law, causes m J f~?*\ M-.3 [*2] ~ 6- 14 13125 FRlJll- T-101 PO0U3,r‘ll004 F-l92 injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, and effectively leaves no adequate remedy on appeal.” _S.W. Florida Paradise P_rgggr_t,§{,Inc. v. Segelkebl 11 So. 3d 268 (Fla. 2d DCA 20l3)(quoting Segarra v. Segarra, 932 So. 2d 1159, 1160 (Fla. 3d DOA 2006)) “The first two factors are jurisdictional, and an assessment ofjurisdiction must be made prior to reaching the third.” Sardines v. Lagares, 305 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001) (citing Beckie v. Morgan, 751 So. 2d 694, 698 n. 4 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)). Requiring someone to appear for a deposition somewhere that he should not be required to be deposed is a harm that cannot be relieved on subsequent appeal, gee §._\iL I_-‘lorida Paradise Proper§_,5, Inc., ill So. 3d at 271 .1 Accordingly, the two jurisdictional prongs of the requirement for a petition for writ of‘ certiorari to review a discovery order are met. it is therefore appropriate for this court to determine whether the order requiring the claims adjuster to travel from Orange County to Broward County for a deposition departs from the essential requirements of the law. We find that it does. In §@ ll/ltll.llnlJl,}1__1,tJ,I,11,(g,l;i1elt11'!ir-s__C_O. v. Howard DiIll16l‘LD.C., P./ln, 72 S0. 3d 783 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011), the Fourth District found that “The county court erroneously compelled a State Farm adjuster who resided and worked in Hillsborough County, and who had not been designated as a corporate representative, to attend a deposition in Bro-ward County." In Fortune Ins. Co. v. Santelli, 621 So. 2d 546 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the Third District found that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in denying a defendants motion for protective order, which denial had the effect of requiring a nonresident corporation’s representative to be taken in Dede County. gee glgg ffeleclyne Industries, Inc. v. ll/Iustang, Ranch Aircraft. Ine., 753 So. 2d 785 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)(finding that, absent extraordinary circumstances, unless u defendant is seeking affirmative relief, the defendant will not be required to travel a great distance to be deposed by the plaintiff); Infinity Ins. C0. v. Gables Ins. Recovery, 17 Fla. L. Weekly Supp 4161: (Fla. llth Cir. Ct. March 1, 2010) (finding that “the trial court erred by ordering the litigation adjuster to appear for deposition in Miami-Dade County where the insurer did not seek affirmative relief . . . .“). ' Such an injury, logically, cannot be remedied by postjudgment appeal because the trip, once already completed, cannot be “undone.” . [*3] [*6] 14 13:25 SMITH and LOBREE, J1, concur. 2 The fact that another panel of Eleventh Circuit judges denied ceitiornri without an opinion, in a ease in which the trial court made a ruling very similar to the one involved in the instant case, in State Fann Mutual Automobile Ills. C. V. Cora! Gables Chiropractic, No. 10-498 AP (Fla. llth Cir. Ct. July²⁵, 2t)i2), does not affect our decision. An appellate court’s denial of oeriiorari is not preeedent for or against the arguments made during the course of the appeal. See Shops \g_1{[9_vidgnt_LJfe fin Ace. It15....Co., 826 S0. 2d 250, 253 (Fla. 2002).